Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Marie Stopes, Hitler and eugenics

Cranmer has been sent Peter Hitchens' comment in his Mail on Sunday column on the sinister Hitler connection with Marie Stopes, who gives her name to the taxpayer-funded Marie Stopes International charity, which makes its money from the vile business of the mass murder of innocent and defenceless babies.

Abortion and its repellent heroine:

I say that Marie Stopes International (which receives about £25 million a year from the NHS, much of it for killing unborn babies under contract) should be allowed to advertise its repellent services on TV. But on one condition. That each advertisement is followed by both of these: film of an actual abortion of a 24-week-old baby, and a brief documentary reminding viewers that Marie Stopes sent love poems to Adolf Hitler in August 1939, advocated compulsory sterilisation for the ‘unfit’, and cut her own son out of her will because he married a girl who wore glasses.

118 Comments:

Blogger Julian Mann said...

Thank the good Lord, a free press in a nation that by God's grace defeated Nazism means the truth about Marie Stropes International cannot be suppressed, despite the power of the politically correct establishment in UK broadcasting.

Abortion on demand as championed by the organisation named after this evil Hitler-lover (with, as Mr Hitchens points out, NHS-collusion) is fundamentally Hitlerian.

There has been a Holocaust of State-sponsored murder since 1967.

26 May 2010 at 08:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Condition?

That would be like asking the Nazi High Command to show on German television the procedures exercised at Auschwitz.

26 May 2010 at 08:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a women's right to choose what to do with her own body.

26 May 2010 at 08:48  
Blogger Robert said...

I agree that women have rights, but those right have to be within reason, but having a termination sadly is one of them. as for Hitler you lose the argument once you stoop that low.

26 May 2010 at 08:56  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Anon states: ‘It's a women's right to choose what to do with her own body.’

Anon conveniently forgets, that the surgeon addresses two patients: the baby and the mother.

Presumably Anon also agrees that ‘It is the slave owner’s right to choose what to do with his slave.’?

Indeed, this is one of the great moral issues, abortion, which reveals the Left-liberal’s Nazi tendency.

26 May 2010 at 09:20  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Anonymous. Should unborn babies have a choice over what happens to their own bodies?

Your Grace thank you for sharing that alarming - if hardly surprising - background to the person of Marie Stopes.

For those who aren't content to merely express dismay in blog comments:

1. Call Marie Stopes
* Telephone the Marie Stopes Helpline (0845 300 3737) and ask them what advice they give to pregnant women who want to continue with their pregnancy, what information they supply about benefits, financial assistance and educational resources and for how long they provide support to such women. Remember to be polite, genuinely probing what help they offer as a charity. Please publish the results of your research and let us know (info@ccfon.org).

2. Complain to the Advertising Standards Authority
* Phone: 020 7492 2222
* Online: Complaint form
* E-mail: new.complaints@asa.org.uk

3. Complain to Channel 4
* Phone: 0845 076 0191
* Online: Complaint form

4. Write to your MP

The advertisement should not be aired for a number of reasons:

* Although MSI is a charity, the services which it will advertise involve a commercial transaction, as the public are charged for £80 for a telephone consultation and hundreds of pounds for an abortion.

* These services are also ‘medical’ since they require the signature of two doctors and therefore by analogy are prohibited by the code (which prevents advertising for prescription only products and services).

* The subject of ‘abortion services’ is a matter of significant political debate and controversy. Furthermore, MSI openly engage in the political campaigns to change the law on abortion and refer to this advert as part of ‘a wider campaign’. Commercial advertising of such issues is not permitted.

26 May 2010 at 09:22  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

Your Grace,

Not like you to be specious. Loose language indeed.

There is a difference between a baby and foetus. Despite what the spin merchants campaigning against abortion purport.

Even if one considers a foetus to have full rights, even if one considers the removal of a foetus as 'murder'. It still does not make it a 'baby'.

If Your Grace insists on addressing matters of this nature it would be as well to maintain the reasoned, fair and accurate language Your Grace has developed such a well deserved reputation for.

"murdering babies"

Really? You think somebody accidentally pregnant who aborts a few weeks later is a murderer? Even though the law says something entirely to the contrary? This is demagogic.

With such strong language being employed, I would ask where the biblical passages are that refer to the gestating human and what rights they are entitled to.

Since you are apparently happy to shift definitions to suit your argument, I wonder what the good book says about abortion. Or if not where you find your basis for accusing those unfortunates of 'murder'.

This is the same level of language use as George Bush calling his security legislation 'The Patriot Act'.
Tactics good enough for slanderers, demagogues and salesmen from a travelling medicine show.

Shame.

26 May 2010 at 09:22  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Anonymous said:

"It's a women's right to choose what to do with her own body."

As Robert has replied, this has to be within reason.
But your premise, as for all who support abortion is entirely mistaken. We are not talking about a woman's "own" body. The abortion debate is about another body namely that of a baby, of a foetus', or embryo, or more exactly, of HUMAN LIFE.
In every sense God is the author and giver of all life, and he gives a mother the right and privilege to host that life, to protect and guard it, in and out of the womb - not to destroy it.
(One reason why the maternal God given instinct is so powerful)

LIFE per se, belongs to God alone, not to any human steward given temporary rights of motherhood and therefore guardianship.

"And God said - let us make man in our image ........ Genesis 1:26.

Modern abortionist doctrine in any sahpe or form is a satanic trick and a lie, of which he is the father.

26 May 2010 at 09:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

OldSlaughter

States: ‘There is a difference between a baby and foetus.’

What he seeks to do, erroneously, is a make a distinction in order to justify the killing of the child. He makes a distinction between a technical term ‘foetus’ used to describe a particular stage in the development of the child and a term, ‘baby’, that is used by the child’s mother.

It is an arbitrary distinction: ‘ovum’; ‘embryo’; ‘foetus’, …baby…child…teenager…adult…pensioner.

But what I ask is the difference between his ground of justification for killing the child and the distinctions made by the Nazis to murder Jewish people?

26 May 2010 at 09:43  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Is this story supported by evidence? It is doing the rounds at the moment but I have been unable to find any proof that Stopes sent love letters to Hitler. She believed in Eugenics (as did Hitler) but that is way different from being a Nazi sympathiser in the period prior to WWII.

Whatever her detractors say she was one of the first figures to assert the right of women to control their own fertility by using contraception. The ability to plan a family or avoid pregnancy altogether is one of the giant steps of human progress. (Unlike contraception abortion is a more complex moral issue and has been discussed on a previous thread)

If anyone has any reliable sources on this subject I would be interested in reading them.

These two may be of interest but in no way offer anything definitive:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3248

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2006/11474443421.html

26 May 2010 at 09:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

OldSlaughter

States: ‘You think somebody accidentally pregnant who aborts a few weeks later is a murderer? Even though the law says something entirely to the contrary? This is demagogic.’

His is the argument that because it is a statutory right to kill a defenceless child then it is not ‘murder’.

It is a tactic used to silence those of us committed to pleading the cause of those who are appointed for death.

The idea of a statutory wrong [in other words, that something commanded by law could be unjust] is considered a contradiction in terms.

The point is this: if an unjust law is a contradiction in terms – the pnly possible consequence of a persistent refusal, like OldSlaughter’s, to measure the law according to moral criteria – then moral values and those holding them are of necessity silenced when laws are being debated. The effect of this is to silence and disenfranchise all people in whose word-view moral commitments play a significant role.

That is: demagogic.

26 May 2010 at 10:00  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@old slaughter ... Do tell, why is a foetus not a baby? Are we to be referred to simply by the medial terminology for our developmental stage, "You are not a child you are a pubescent". If nothing else, surely it is always better to air on the side of caution?

As another little test, go up to a pregnant lady of any gestation and ask her how her foetus is. Don't be surprised it you cause offence and receive a slap. If you still don't want to call it a baby, do you find it specious to refer to 'it' as human?

I have to admit that I have yet to hear a pregnant lady of any length of gestation talk about her foetus. They normally refer to their baby. Certainly by the time of 16 weeks or more, I would be very surprised if anyone has ever said they can feel their foetus kicking.

And before we get into the usual merry-go-round, what of the main point of His Grace's article - the character of the Marie Stopes. Does that speak volumes. A bit like having an organisation offering advice on race relations called the "Jean-Marie Le Pen Organisation".

26 May 2010 at 10:02  
Anonymous bluedog said...

D Singh @ 0943, I am guilty of murder then. My wife was pregnant with what would have been our fourth child. There were problems. The medical advice was that the child could potentially kill its mother. It died so that she could live and continue to love our three children. Put yourself in my position and tell me if I was wrong to agree to the abortion. I can tell you now we both regret the decision, but it was a matter of life and death. Would you tell your wife to die?

26 May 2010 at 10:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a general rule any argument which mentions Hitler or Jesus has descended to pointlessness...

Marie Stopes might have been an advocate of eugenics, but to suggest that the current organisation bearing her name is akin to the Nazi Party is just ridiculous.

As for D Singh - there's a world of difference between aborting a cluster of cells which could one day turn in to a human being and herding millions on people in to gas chambers... if you can't see that they you probably shouldn't be talking about this stuff.

Matt

26 May 2010 at 10:05  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Old Slaughter asks:
"I wonder what the good book says about abortion."

To my knowledge it has nothing to say about it, but plenty to say about the taking of life - by intention, or by accident.
For the latter Exodus 21:22/23 is interesting, but this has no connection with the modern practice of abortion/infanticide.

There is no question but that the deliberate taking of an infant's life, whether in embryo, or at any stage in the life cycle is murder. (leave aside for a moment the more complex moral dilemmas of pregnancy threats to the life of the mother for other reasons which is an entirely different discussion)
Because human life is made in the image of God, to take that life is expressly forbidden in the Bible.

For those who doubt that a foetus has ALL the potential physical attributes of a fully complete human - see Luke's Gospel 1:41, and 44.
Note too that the Gk word 'brephos' to denote an unborn child, is the same word used of a newborn baby (Luke 2:12, 16), and even of children brought to Jesus to bless (Luke 18:15.)
In any event medical science more than confirms the truth of the complete person-hood of the human embryo)
Incidentally, the one question that embarrassed Obama in his public TV interview before his election, and which tied him up in knots was - "When does human life begin?" His confused replies betrayed his both his unbelief in God and his later abortionist agenda.

26 May 2010 at 10:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

bluedog – I thought OldSlaughter had made it clear – that on the basis of law – it is not murder.

26 May 2010 at 10:17  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This entire post is a nasty piece of distorted innuendo and half baked misinformation.

26 May 2010 at 10:20  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Anyone here support the notion that the world would have been a better place if Hitler had been aborted?

26 May 2010 at 10:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This is a typical nonsense question form Dreadnaught:

‘Anyone here support the notion that the world would have been a better place if Hitler had been aborted?’

No child emerges from the womb with a swastika tattooed on his forehead.

Dreadnaught demonstrates the hallmark of the arch-Left-liberal: fear of the future.

That fear is to be eliminated by mass killings. In other words, there is no difference between her thinking and mass murderers. That again shows how close the Left-liberal is to the ideology of National Socialism.

26 May 2010 at 10:38  
Blogger Scrigg said...

What I find strange is in the advert the message is that Katie simmons is 'late'. This is suggested like it might come as some surprise to Katie that she could get pregnant out of the blue. Whoring your vagina around the locality indiscriminately will be the most probable cause for this sudden 'lateness'.

Women do have a right to choose about there bodies, but whores are also female and there needs to be a distinction made between a whore and a woman who has a difficult pregnancy.

My point is that we are terminating the lives of babies because vast numbers of slutty whores are screwing around like wild animals. They can't control themselves, and like wild dogs they are getting poked every weekend by all and sundry - downing vast volumes of larger and alcopops, then lying prostrate while Billy Larger Head humps the crotch out of her.

26 May 2010 at 10:54  
Anonymous photo ex machina said...

All you religious throwbacks seem very keen on telling people how they ought to be living their lives.

Some things never change!

26 May 2010 at 10:56  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Surely the issue of abortion boils down to two things.

If you believe life is God given then it is wrong for us to take it away.

If you don’t believe in God then you probably think that killing should only be morally acceptable in only the most extreme circumstances, for example to free an innocent hostage.

For the atheist the moral problem with abortion is determining when life begins and so at what stage of pregnancy ending it can reasonably be described as killing a foetus.

There can be no specific stage in a pregnancy when life can be said to begin other than conception, rather new life is like a dimmer switch that is gradually turned on. However most would agree that aborting a foetus at term is infanticide and that aborting a foetus whilst it is still a “clump of cells” is less bad.

Pregnancy involves two sets of rights, the foetus and the mother which makes the debate so difficult. There must be occasions when abortion whilst perhaps still not morally acceptable is the least bad option. In the situation that bluedog described only a religious zealot would condemn his decision to abort.

The encouragement of responsible parenting and the discussion of the moral implications of all our actions should be at the heart of all education and particularly in sexual matters. Abortion will continue but discussion of it should not be sanitised, every young person should see a video of an abortion and then discuss it at school. Abortion should be acceptable in only the most extreme circumstances; however it should never be banned.

To adopt an absolutist position is just as immoral as supporting a laissez faire attitude. It’s messy but we just have to live with it.

26 May 2010 at 11:01  
Blogger Preacher said...

In my experience when a woman is examined to confirm pregnancy, the baby is referred to as an embryo & only after it is confirmed by the parents that the child is wanted it 'suddenly' becomes a baby.
It should be born in mind that science has proved that every persons dna is different, thus the unborn child is a seperate person from their parents, an individual who is unique in their own right.
Regrettably abortion has become a form of late contraception in many cases & organisations have been quick to cash in, this neccesitates 'protecting' the mother to be from the truth of what is going to happen by means of deception, (just a bundle of cells) & simplifying the operation to almost the level of removing a birthmark, this alleviates the feelings of guilt, although the mother will still feel a natural inbuilt anguish about losing her baby (many women have a lot of problems both mental & physical that follow an abortion).
I feel that an abortion is only acceptable as a last resort i.e in the case mentioned earlier by Bluedog when the mothers life is at risk, sometimes it is neccesary to make a sacrifice to protect a loved one (Bluedog I feel your pain).
Abortion on demand, in my opinion paves the way for euthanasia & other 'termination' programmes to produce 'perfect' people who look like 'Angels of light' but whose souls (if they have them) are as black as their father Satan who promoted the Aryan dream that nearly took over the world in 1939-1945.

26 May 2010 at 11:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

photo ex machina

‘All you religious throwbacks seem very keen on telling people how they ought to be living their lives.’

On the contrary we are the progressives: live and let live.

You are the barbaric throwbacks who believe mass ‘murder’ is the solution.

26 May 2010 at 11:08  
Blogger Scrigg said...

Scriggs version of the advert:


*Katie Simmons has got margarine legs; she spreads them every weekend and can't control herself.

*Katie Simmons has got enough child benefit and child tax credits to be going on with so she doesn't need another sprog.

*Katie Simmons is late AGAIN! "Dam this vagina of mine." "I don't like taking the pill it makes me fat and I can't get a shag."

*'Thank God for abortions', thinks Katie Simmons - who can't keep her friggin legs closed for five minutes.

26 May 2010 at 11:14  
Blogger gresham58 said...

As with all debates about abortion that this one once again comes down to an argument between those who think that once an egg has been fertilised it instantly becomes a human being with all the rights that that implies, and those who think that life is not as clear cut as that and what is essentially a ball of cells is not a human being.
To avoid discussion of when a ball of cells becomes a human being can we consider very early abortions say within the first week or two, what makes that ball of cells so special that a young woman should not be allowed to decide that she doesn’t want to be a mother yet. In fact to make the issue even more clear cut let us imagine that the couple in question have been using contraception but that the condom split or whatever other failure you care to think of.
Jobrag

26 May 2010 at 11:17  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Why is the NHS paying for Abortion ? Surely it can be a recovery charge for the CSA to collect ?

Be interesting to have a full breakdown on Abortion including how many are Repeat Abortions and by postcode and demographics of the "mother"

26 May 2010 at 11:23  
Blogger D. Singh said...

gresham58

Abstinence until marriage is 100% safe.

26 May 2010 at 11:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

No child emerges from the womb with a swastika tattooed on his forehead

Simply profound Mr.S, but it was only a simple question to the outpouring of bile from Cranny and seeing as you pro-life Christians believe that humans are born sinful. I think the world would have been a better place if Mrs Schickelgruber had the option of Stopes' facilities in her day.

Well - am I wrong?

Aw Singhy - just when I thought you were getting better.

26 May 2010 at 11:28  
Blogger Scrigg said...

Stop talking bollocks OK.

There is no mention of difficult pregnancies, or any other reason for abortion other than being 'late'.

This advert is sending out a message to the millions of young girls out there that they no longer need to feel any responsibility for getting pregnant. It's all very simple now; if your 'late', then you pop down to Marie Stopes and have the wretched thing ripped out.

The only reason being put forward in the advert is, being 'Late'. No mention of difficult pregnancies or any other reasonable justification other than, a late whore.

26 May 2010 at 11:30  
Blogger gresham58 said...

D Singh
Married couples use contaception, and have failures of contraception too.
Jobrag

26 May 2010 at 11:31  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Excellent post your Grace,


Its curious and disturbing how some commentators are so detached from the miracle that is life ,and it is repulsive that they so easily use medical terminology to excuse and justify infanticide.

Thousands of humans are poisoned and their bodies chopped up ,then thrown away like trash every year,by women who see the miracle of a human life as an inconvenience and must be killed.

Your Grace,Scrig,Mr Singh etc I applaud your compassion for the defenceless unborn.

To those who support infanticide I would suggest you pray ,and thank God that your mother was not so cavalier towards your life or death.

26 May 2010 at 11:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Dreadnaught

'Well - am I wrong?'

Yes.

She was no mystic Meg.

26 May 2010 at 11:43  
Blogger Scrigg said...

.
.
Nazi Stopes - Abortion Queen.

26 May 2010 at 11:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

gresham58

Do you not recall the wedding vows you and your young bride made before God and men?

'With my body I honour you,
all that I am I give to you,
and all that I have I share with you,
within the love of God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.'


Both of you are to honour each other with your bodies.

26 May 2010 at 12:01  
OpenID scottspeig said...

Your Grace,

An interesting connection (although technically there should be no comments as you lost the argument due to Godwin's law)

On the issue at hand, I would like to see a complete banning on abortion, however, I understand that there are a few grey areas such as bluedogs' scenario.

As a compromise, I would only allow abortion on medical grounds (death of mother/child only) and before the 12 week period (the magic marker for natural miscarriages).

If there is a possible "death scenario" after 12 weeks, I would like to see a procedure to deliver the baby and do our utmost to preserve all life.

26 May 2010 at 12:02  
Blogger Scrigg said...

scottspig

This has nothing to do with Godwins Law because there are clear and real links between her and Adolf Hitler.

You have lost the argument based upon talking bollocks and using words you do not understand.

26 May 2010 at 12:07  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

vast numbers of slutty whores are screwing around like wild animals. They can't control themselves, and like wild dogs they are getting poked every weekend by all and sundry - downing vast volumes of larger and alcopops, then lying prostrate while Billy Larger Head humps the crotch out of her

Bit pervy is this. Sounds like Scrigg is really getting his rocks off just thinking about the icky stuff.

26 May 2010 at 12:11  
Blogger Scrigg said...

@ Dreadnaught

You know exactly where I am coming from but you seek character assassination. It has failed.

26 May 2010 at 12:18  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

WTF? Have I been moderated? That was an exhausting and inoffensive comment.

Where is it. I shall wait and repeat because D Singh's slur must be addressed.

26 May 2010 at 12:26  
Blogger Young Mr. Brown said...

Graham Davis asked:

Is this story supported by evidence? It is doing the rounds at the moment but I have been unable to find any proof that Stopes sent love letters to Hitler.

I don't know about proof. The evidence that I have found is that the Telegraph clearly thinks so - see this article.

26 May 2010 at 12:29  
Blogger Young Mr. Brown said...

(But I do agree that the article falls well short of being proof.)

26 May 2010 at 12:39  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Thanks Young Mr Brown but I was hoping for evidence rather than journalism from a biased source. This story is swirling around the right wing press and blogs without anyone stopping to find out whether its true or not. Perhaps it is who knows?

26 May 2010 at 12:41  
Blogger Scrigg said...

@ Graham Davis

If you want evidence then do not be so lazy and do some searching yourself. Nobody can actually prove this to you but there is plenty of stuff on the internet which suggests there is a huge element of truth in the matter.

Start HERE and look up some of the references.

26 May 2010 at 13:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

We must turn the clock back.

We must go back to the pre-1967 legal position.

It is perfectly feasible.

In Britain the Left-liberals argued that there were 100,000 illegal abortions per year prior to the passage of the liberal abortion law in 1967. However, Dr C.B. Goodhart at Cambridge put such vague claims to rest.

He first demostrated that the number of maternal deaths due to abortion (a figure hard to distort very greatly) was far too low to support the figure of 100,000 illegal abortions per year.

He then proceeded to calculate the rate of illegal abortions in Britain as a whole from the known rate of abortions in one particular locale, where very liberal access to abortion prevailed even under the old law (which did give discretion to the physician to certify that health was at stake). Even allowing for a generous measure of illegal abortion in that one locale, he still came to the conclusion that there could not have been more than about 20,000 illegal abortons per year for the whole of Britain before the enactment of the 1967 law.

In the first full year of operation, of abortion, on the NHS – the figures for maternal deaths rocketed.

In other words, back-street abortionists with their coat-hangers were doing a far better job than NHS physicians.



Refs: CB Goodhart, The Freqency of Illegal Abortions, Eugenics Review 55 (1964): 197:200

CB Goodhart, Estimation of Illegal Abortions, Jounal of Biosocial Science 1 (1969): 236-245

26 May 2010 at 13:50  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

@ Scrigg 10:54

You are not Peter Sutcliff are you? There is a distinct whiff of serial killer about your prose!
Indeed that was a sweeping generalisation. But it takes two to tango.

26 May 2010 at 13:54  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

@ Bluedog 10:02

Sorry to read about your sad dilemma. I'm sure you made the right decision in your circumstances. What that and any other advertisements about abortion do is bring the guilt and negative feeling all fooding back to people who have had to undergo abortions. They don't need nightly reminders! Deciding to abort something that is alive inside you is a very personal thing at whatever stage it is at.

26 May 2010 at 14:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘What is the cognitive core of the abortion movement, one might ask, that gives rise to so self-destructive a logic? What is the abortionist’s fundamental vision of things? It is, as I will attempt to demonstrate, an inverted way of evaluating the metaphysical reality of human life in which life that IS NOT is given greater importance than life that IS, in which POSSIBLE life (life that is not yet, but could be) takes precedence over ACTUAL life (life that already is, whether pre- or postnatal). Precisely because the movement gives more weight to WHAT IS NOT (possible being) than to WHAT IS (actual being), such radical attachment to the negative must involve it more and more intimately with non-reality, until its own dissolution is finally effected. The essential difference between the pro-abortion movement and its life-affirming countermovement is that the former is willing to dismiss certain human realities as if they were nothing and value the hypothetical as if it were real, while the latter is committed to affirming all human realities and honouring their primacy over what is not real.’

Donald DeMarco

26 May 2010 at 14:28  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Sure its easy to demonise a dead person when they obviously cant respond; or rabble rouse the mob into a frenzy with emotional rhetoric – that exactly what any propagandist worth their salt will do. If Stopes’ son is still proud to include her name in his (Stopes-Roe) and according to reports refutes entirely, the charge that she ‘loved Hitler’ or condoned his penchant for genocide – that surely suggests to me to suspect that the pro-life lobby will stoop to any level as Cranmer and his foetus photos have done, to grab publicity for their right to dictate and interfere in the lives of others irrespective of the full truth.

The Stopes Foundation claims that the ‘vast majority’ of abortions are carried out within the fist 13 weeks of pregnancy but it was the still the opinion of Church of England to gave its tacit support to the Act of 1967 that permitted abortion (subject to there being an unbearable abnormality in the foetus) as late as 24 weeks - So a hard core moral judgement can give way to ‘practicality’ when with Church approval.
http://www.spuc.org.uk/students/abortion/religion

Would it not be unreasonable to deny abortion to a rape victim; a person with diminished mental faculties, or even an ill-informed reckless teenager? Stopes do not and never have, advocated abortion as a first line contraception device, to say so would be a despicable lie. They exist to support women’s sexual education and health in over 30 countries: unlike pro-lifers, they don’t sit in judgement on a woman in her time of distress but offer advice and practical support which of course includes abortion. In many cultures women are the ‘property’ of men – no one has mentioned the important role men play in all of this at all except for the poisonous outpouring from Scriggs who even when he does, he directs his medieval mysogensitic rantings at the women. – SPIT!

Compulsory sterilisation for rapists and paedophiles should be mandatory as well as a prison term. People unable to give parental support or genetically provide an independent quality of life to a child for whatever reason, should be at least counselled to consider voluntary sterilisation – which is what Stopes is very good at.

Bluedog has made the most valid post on this thread – dissenters be pleased that you do not find yourself in the same position he and his wife were (brave of him to be so candid) in living with a ‘Sophie’s Choice’ reality.

26 May 2010 at 14:34  
Anonymous Visitor said...

A cage-rattlingly good post and yet still the same old life denying tactics from the 'right to choose' lobby.

26 May 2010 at 14:36  
Blogger English Viking said...

Old Slaughter,

I always suspected you of being an idiot, now I'm sure.

Scrigg,

I'm glad that at least one other person other than myself understands Godwin's law. Entirely reasonable comparisons to Hitleresque techniques of eugenics does not fall under this law, as you have correctly pointed out. I also find it rather infantile when posters think that they have 'won' because 'you said Hitler'.

26 May 2010 at 14:38  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

@ D Singh.

You comment here often and it's been my observation that you are never far from an ad hom or a good Nazi comparison. Today it seems is no exception.

"What he seeks to do, erroneously, is a make a distinction in order to justify the killing of the child."

I've never once commented on abortion. How do you presume to know what I seek? Substantiate or apologise.

"It is a tactic used to silence those of us committed to pleading the cause..."

I don't seek to silence you. Where have I attempted it?

If you wish to make statements against the 'immoral killing of a foetus' then that is fine. If you wish to describe it as the murdering of babies, you are being incorrect. Now as you are not an idiot it would suggest to me that the misuse of language is deliberately employed to help you win the argument.
Surely there is a name for such behaviour?

"...between his ground of justification for killing the child and the distinctions made by the Nazis to murder Jewish people?"

If you think the process of birth is as arbitrary as the Nuremberg Laws then it says more about your thinking than it does mine. I am tempted to quote Godwin's but find it such a cliche that anyone that does is a bit of a p-rick.

"It is an arbitrary distinction: ‘ovum’; ‘embryo’; ‘foetus’, …baby…child…teenager…adult…pensioner."

If these distinctions are arbitrary then you should be calling somebody that kills a bacteria a murderer. An Ovum cannot be taken to term. Yet to you this is a 'child'? Bunk.

"makes a distinction between a technical term ‘foetus’ used to describe a particular stage in the development of the child and a term, ‘baby’, that is used by the child’s mother."

Now, a foetus is clearly not yet born. So why did His Grace not choose to use this word which 100% describes what he refers? The use of the word 'baby' could mean an 11 month old. Why use the less specific (and as my argument goes, accurate)term? Oh yeah, because it doesn't help the argument. (Spin anyone?)

Murder is unlawful killing. If it is not unlawful it is not murder. They are facts.
You might wish to change this law, you might wish to call it immoral, but as a point of fact it does not make it murder as that is a criminal charge.
By your logic is that girl I mentioned as an example expected to share a cell next to Rosemary West?
Equal charge. Equal punishment?

"a persistent refusal, like OldSlaughter’s, to measure the law according to moral criteria"

Persistent? The one and only time I have commented on it. Besides, I don't wish you to remove morality from the discussion of laws, I simply wish you, or actually His Grace, would desist from using deliberately emotive yet inaccurate language in the course of said discussion. 'demagoguery' anyone?

So, I asked for a more refined use of language and in response you assigned arguments to me that were not my own, or certainly not expressed.
Substantiate or apologise. Come on, show the humility and decency of your faith.

26 May 2010 at 14:41  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

@ Rebel Saint

"If nothing else, surely it is always better to air on the side of caution?"

With respect, I think you mean 'err', and it is not good to err on the side of anything, but if errors have to be made, best to err on the side of accuracy.

"As another little test, go up to a pregnant lady of any gestation and ask her how her foetus is. Don't be surprised it you cause offence and receive a slap. If you still don't want to call it a baby, do you find it specious to refer to 'it' as human?"

Sir, if this is the case for you then I humbly suggest you're either in possession of an incredibly slappable face, have no idea how to address women, or should stop mixing with such violent and unstable/illiterate pregnant types.
A ridiculous comment.

I do not find calling them humans specious. Although I would prefer 'human embryo' and 'human foetus'as this avoids any of the vagueness of definitions.

Re. the main point of His Grace's argument, I tend to struggle with arguments where I sense the person making it is seeking to play me for an idiot. When his Grace attempts to appeal to my mind rather than my emotions (as he has on every other post so far) I listen like no other.

@Viking

Nothing like a reasoned argument. Ad homs in vogue today it seems.

26 May 2010 at 14:42  
Blogger English Viking said...

Marie1797,

Guilt is good. It shows us where we are wrong, and helps prevent us from making the same mistake again. Hoping we are never reminded of the things that we have done that make us feel guilty is exactly what Adam hoped in the Garden of Eden, when he hid himself from God after his sin. Suppressed guilt will only lead us further away from God.

26 May 2010 at 14:46  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Scrigg you have made my point for me. The reference to the Hitler letter leads back to the Telegraph. And don’t believe all you read on the internet, it may not be TRUE!

26 May 2010 at 14:54  
Blogger English Viking said...

Old Slaughter,

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

26 May 2010 at 14:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

OldSlaughter

I have not described the killing of babies as murder. I thought I had made that clear to bluedog in referring him to your post.

You state: ‘If you think the process of birth is as arbitrary as the Nuremberg laws then it says more about your thinking than it does mine.’

I have not said or implied that ‘… the process of birth is as arbitrary as the Nuremberg laws… ‘

It is the law, in my opinion, that is as arbitrary as the Nuremberg laws:

Section 1(1) of the 1967 Abortion Act (as mended) states:

‘Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—‘

Thus, a mere two registered medical practioners merely need an opinion ‘to sign the child’s death warrant’. That is as arbitarary as the Nuremberg laws.

I was incorrect about the term ‘ovum’.

You state: ‘Now, a foetus is clearly not yet born.’

If that is your criterion for justifying abortion (that the unborn child is not born) then that is morally repugnant.

I agree with you ‘Murder is unlawful killing’ (and I refer you to my point in reference to bluedog – at the risk of repetition).

26 May 2010 at 15:03  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

Correction: "a bacterium"

@Viking.

Some, at least those with respect for debate, would seek to demonstrate the quacking.

26 May 2010 at 15:03  
Blogger English Viking said...

Old Slaughter,

I must confess that I am having difficulty deciding which end of you the noise is emanating from, and it does rather resemble the bleatings of sheep, so I may be mistaken.

26 May 2010 at 15:07  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 May 2010 at 15:08  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

D Singh said...

I will attempt to demonstrate, an inverted way of evaluating the metaphysical reality of human life in which life that IS NOT is given greater importance than life that IS, in which POSSIBLE life (life that is not yet, but could be) takes precedence over ACTUAL life (life that already is, whether pre- or postnatal). Precisely because the movement gives more weight to WHAT IS NOT (possible being) than to WHAT IS (actual being), such radical attachment to the negative must involve it more and more intimately with non-reality, until its own dissolution is finally effected.

There is no metaphysical reality just unreality so your point, and I have no idea what it was, is somewhat undermined.

Much as you might wish it, the clock will never be turned back so rather that battle on from an absolutist position why not try to influence opinion in the way that I suggested earlier?

26 May 2010 at 15:09  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

@ Singh

Firstly may I apologise. I was criticising the use of the phrase 'murder of... babies'

I realise now you were only justifying the word 'baby' and not 'murder'.

My criticism of that still stands, but against His Grace rather than yourself.

Nevertheless, I see you not only gloss straight over your misattributing my motivations with no attempt to correct or apologise but insist on repeating it.

Where did I seek to justify abortion?

26 May 2010 at 15:09  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

@Viking

Thank you for re-enforcing my point.

Your confusion may reside in the fact that there is no noise as I am communicating with text.
Any more animal comparisons and petty insults or will there be an attempt to discuss?

26 May 2010 at 15:12  
Blogger D. Singh said...

OldSlaughter

At the risk of repetition:

‘You state: ‘Now, a foetus is clearly not yet born.’

I stated: ‘If that is your criterion for justifying abortion (that the unborn child is not born) then that is morally repugnant.’

I used the conjunctive (subordinating): ‘If.’

26 May 2010 at 15:13  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

@Singh

Really? That seems to imply there is a justification for abortion and the 'if' regards exactly what that is.

I guess my English is insufficient.

Perhaps though if you had written: "If you are justifying abortion by..."

it might have been clearer.

Still though:

"His is the argument that because it is a statutory right to kill a defenceless child then it is not ‘murder’.
It is a tactic used to silence those of us committed to pleading the cause of those who are appointed for death."

This does seem a little like you are disagreeing with my point. So when you say it isn't murder that is ok, when I say it it is a tactic to justify killing?

So again, please address the comments you made about me without substantiation. Or will there be another distraction?

26 May 2010 at 15:20  
Blogger English Viking said...

I notice you think me petty, but you see fit to pick fault with solecisms of other posters.

Reinforce. Unless you're American, which might explain other things if you are.

26 May 2010 at 15:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

OldSlaughter

You state: ‘Perhaps though if you [D. Singh] had written: "If you are justifying abortion by..." it would have been less prone to misunderstanding – I agree.

Do note, I have deposited murder throughout my posts within apostrophes.

26 May 2010 at 15:27  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Singhy – it seems to me that not for the first time that you are unbelievably detached from reality, not to mention completely and callously rash, with your insensitive and outrageous remarks even with your abridged references.

…there could not have been more than about 20,000 illegal abortions per year for the whole of Britain before the enactment of the 1967 law

back-street abortionists with their coat-hangers were doing a far better job than NHS physicians….

It was precisely the fact that the back street abortionists, whose praises you incredibly laud, delivered no aftercare, caused untold deaths and misery, and were feared by most women with no alternative but seek their ‘services’ or face social ostracism. Are you suggesting that someone or other kept records of their illegal activities? - Highly speculative at best.
How the number of secret illegal operations could be possibly calculated and then legitimately used to compare such a change in the law that some may jump to the conclusion that abortion lead to a massive rise in promiscuity is abject nonsense old chap.

More’s the point, that so many women were living in fear of and with unwanted pregnancies were now getting help under legal and clinical conditions. Further more Abortion ‘tourists’ from less enlightened religiously repressed countries and cultures such as Ireland, added many numbers to the 60s record as well you would know.

26 May 2010 at 15:34  
Anonymous I didn't realise nuts were still about said...

can't see what is wrong with this myself, a women has the right to choose what to do with her own body. Perhaps the male posters here would feel otherwise, if a baby was coming out of their cocks (or bums, which is what most of you seem to speak out of anyway).

26 May 2010 at 15:35  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

@Singh


Either way, you did say this:

"What he seeks to do, erroneously, is a make a distinction in order to justify the killing of the child."

So you did say I was trying to justify abortion. Why the syntactic wrangling in follow up the second time?
You have still not addressed the unfair points you made. Why is that?
Where is the humility and grace following my exposure of your unfair conjecture?

Plastic Christian.

@Viking,

No, I am not American, just borderline dyslexic. (and not even in a diagnosable-get longer exams-worthy of sympathy way, I am just crap at it)

I don't think you petty. I think you are being petty. How's that for petty?

Actually really petty would be to suggest that you cannot pick fault in solecisms, merely highlight them as they are a fault.

However you were right to point that out. Fair one.

Still, insults and solecisms considered, I can't say I will be leaving this conversation any the more enlightened for your efforts.

26 May 2010 at 15:35  
Anonymous Arch left liberal said...

I just do not get Singh. Here is a man who thinks soldiers who suffer from Post traumatic distress should be 'shot' and yet he is saying abortion is wrong because it is murder. I wonder if he opposes the death penalty on similar grounds? And if he is against murder why he is so cruel in respect to wounded soldiers? Is he not showing a whiff of hypocrisy?

26 May 2010 at 15:45  
Anonymous Roland Thompson said...

Look chaps, abortion is just plain murder and should be stopped.

26 May 2010 at 15:46  
Anonymous Jimmy Ball said...

Is there any nationality which the oxymoron 'English' Viking does actually like? Why does the man spend so much time railing against the world? Is he depressed?

26 May 2010 at 15:47  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

I have come to this a little late to take a full part, but I would rejoin to those who say that only women can have a say in this argument, that I am a man, but was once a foetus. Yes; I am an ex-foetus. I think that qualifies me to have an opinion. The same applies to any other ex-foetuses in this debate, of whatever gender.

Otherwise, only the robbed may complain of theft, and only murder victims find fault with murderers (oops, perhaps a little late for them to make complaints).

Anyway, this particular ex-foetus is deeply grateful the Stopes monster left him in the womb instead of ripping him out and shredding him to bits.

26 May 2010 at 15:54  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

The death penalty argument is an irrelevant nonsense, and I'm sick of hearing it rehearsed.

In the case of abortion, death is brought to those who have done nothing to deserve it. In the case of the death penalty it is richly deserved. That's why it is called a penalty.

Is that simple enough for you?

26 May 2010 at 15:58  
Anonymous Singh's mirror said...

Look chaps, abortion is wrong, it is only the left/liberals who don't like it,oy! your all national socialists, no I have taken my medicine today....er..... any one who disagrees with me is a national socialists... right... quoting lots of random crap.... help!

26 May 2010 at 15:58  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Dreadnaught,

You are confusing what you think ought to have been the case, and what actually was the case. Can you not see that we were sold a lie? Exaggerated numbers of illegal abortions and exaggerated numbers of maternal deaths from illegal abortions; so we legalise it to protect these few people? Then how come we now have abortion on demand for 2/3 of the pregnancy and until term if the child has a minor (and easily fixable) maxillo-facial deformity? Perhaps it was the plan all along? If one seeks to dehumanise a group of people, then must first be labelled; then treated differently, then the violence must begin slowly. From there it builds, until society simply accepts the unacceptable.

To those who claim that an unborn child is but a clump of cells, I ask you what you think you are. Are you so much more special because you are a recognisable shape?

The term foetus means 'offspring'. Yet people use it as a dehumanising term to deny that the baby is alive. What is the magical property of born children that makes their lives worth more than those who aren't born? Is it because they have a different name? Mr Singh has it quite right when he cites that foetus is a label like baby or child or adult. I am a teenager, but in some ways I am an adult, though in others I am still a child; a foetus is a baby, but a baby is not necessarily a foetus. The dehumanising labels don't fit here.

If one uses cold and unemotional reasoning, one can make the conclusion that abortion is always the taking of human life. You can attempt to justify it using emotion and truthiness, but you must always come to terms with the fact that it is the taking of human life.

26 May 2010 at 16:01  
Blogger English Viking said...

Jimmy Ball,

It is not an oxymoron to be a Viking from England. There are French ones too - why do you think the Normans were so called?

I am a bit depressed. I think it comes about, in part, from being systematically robbed of my hard-earned cash, by Governments of all colours, in the form of a plethora of taxes, so that unborn children can be slaughtered in the 100,000's every year, and then being told I'm not allowed to object because I'm not a woman.

I quite like the Aussies, except when we're playing them at cricket (or even tiddlywinks, come to that).

Scandinavians are also fine, but then I would say that, wouldn't I?

BTW What have my rants about abortion got to do with my like or dislike or any given nation?

26 May 2010 at 16:08  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester91,

How refreshing that a teenager can express themselves so eloquently and show themselves capable of independent thought and an ability to reject the brainwashing that passes as either 'education' or 'medical advice' nowadays.

All that, plus your argument is entirely correct.

26 May 2010 at 16:12  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

the fact that it is the taking of human life.

I never have disputed this fact MrL. And I don't support the arguments for abortion for trivialities either. I have made the point before that the only people who have true legitimacy to be heard in this matter are women.

Having said that, we all know how figures can be interpreted in all manner of ways to support an argument, but I thought that after nearly 45 years of the 67 Act we would not be dredging them out now.

It's just so low down to drag Stopes' name through the mud in justification of differences of opinion. I am truly surprised by Cranny's uncharacteristic crudity of argument - he really must be tired of blogging.

26 May 2010 at 16:20  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

@ English Viking
I agree guilt is good. I was thinking about all those women who have worked through their guilt, confessed, asked forgiveness and come out the other end and moved on, also Bluedog's wife, she and others like her probably don't want ads like aired on national TV. I've never been in that situation but I don't want to see abortion ads.

And would that ad deter women of child bearing age from having unprotected sex? I don't think so, it will just encourage them as in the back of their minds would be the thought of a quick termination. Whereas if the pro life film clip was also shown of a live abortion it might have an effect of frightening young people into being more responsible but does the rest of the nation have to watch it as well? NO. Isn't it part of their sex education classes at the appropriate age namely 14?

26 May 2010 at 16:56  
Blogger English Viking said...

Marie1797,

I was not suggesting that the ad should be shown, it certainly should not.

26 May 2010 at 17:11  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The NHS could make drugs for a fraction of the price it costs to buy them from the pharmaceutical industry giants. Yet they are forced to pay top prices to the private sector, with taxpayers money.

The scam with Marie Stopes is yet again the very same thing, thats how part privatization works, its not Hitlers final solution we see at work.

Rather Thatcherite-Blairite liberal fascism.

26 May 2010 at 17:12  
Blogger Scrigg said...

In some distant future we will feel that we (us) let the human race down quite considerably. We are failing quite dramatically to prove that we have the capacity to behave in any advanced and civilised fashion.

Future humans will morn our stupidity and feel embarrassed to have us as ancestors.

If this comment is preserved and read during such times then I would like to apologise wholeheartedly for my fellow contemporaries. Sorry guys, we just didn't have it in us. We are consumer whores, totally wrapped up in ourselves and absorbed with material wealth and consumerism. We are superficial creatures that cannot see beyond the next purchase.

So very sorry for you to have us as ancestors.

26 May 2010 at 17:41  
Blogger srizals said...

All the ruckus and rumble in the wild wild West. Thank God no Somali Warlord is reading any of this.

26 May 2010 at 18:52  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, whatever your view on abortion (my own view is that this is murder of innocents, but there are some circumstances in which one can appreciate why this may have to be carried out ) what is clear is that this particular women was into eugenics. Now a brief glance about this on the internet tells us that this belief is all about 'breeding' human beings as if one were horses or rabbits. This is clearly the type of world the nazis wanted to create; unless you were perfect you should be murdered ! So sod them for having this women's name at the head of their charity.

Also to those who talk about a women’s right to choose. There is of course a view which may be old fashioned, but which says it takes 2 to create a life. The men must also be considered here. I am not yet blessed with children, although one keeps trying, but I do look forward to the day in which I have a big family to look after and in which I can be proud (regardless of disability or gender).

BTW- I am also short sighted.

PS- Sizzling Srizals stop making cheap points about Somali Warlords. They are just as bad.

PPS- please do not respond to this and then complain that it is 4 o clock in Malaysia so you cannot reply to any follow up.

PPPS - I know from friends about how Muslims treat Chinese Malay Christians in your country, so I would, with respect prefer not to read about any further rot with which you choose to defend your religion.

26 May 2010 at 19:37  
Blogger srizals said...

zzzzzz...

26 May 2010 at 20:13  
Blogger srizals said...

zzz..."You're still a slave of the British and stop trying to please your Chinese friends by giving them licence to gamble and rake in millions through football". Pheww. What a nightmare! zzzz...

26 May 2010 at 20:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How ironic that the author of one of the Mail's most prominent columns is bringing up this Marie Stopes link to Hitler. Perhaps he should get his own house in order. Hurrah for the Blackshirts indeed...

26 May 2010 at 20:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lavendon, finally someone wants to tackle that vile sizrals. what a wanker....

26 May 2010 at 20:50  
Anonymous Muslim Wanabee (don't call me late for the Jihad) said...

Srizals, sorry, I cannot reply to you as it is 20.53pm here in the decedant west. I am just about to become a muslim, so thought I had better get the wife beating in before I went to bed....

26 May 2010 at 20:53  
Anonymous Arch Left Liberal said...

Srizals must suffer from a sleep disorder. Perhaps my wife can help,as her expertise is in sleep medicine? That is, if you want to be helped from a women (include D.Singh and Viking in that, as they do not like women being over them, although to me that seems quite a nice position to be in).

26 May 2010 at 21:10  
Blogger English Viking said...

Arch Left Liberal,

You can't be that much of a Lefty if you have a wife instead of a 'partner'.

26 May 2010 at 21:50  
Anonymous Arch left Liberal said...

Oh dear, I've been rumbled....

26 May 2010 at 22:11  
Anonymous Jihad said...

What about a fatawa against Viking, Singh, the atheist Davis, the half baptist Anabaptist and the lunatic that calls himself Lord Lavendon?

26 May 2010 at 22:13  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Lord Lavendon,

Oh dear, I am short sighted as well.

There is evidence to suggest that Sir Isaac Newton had a degree of autism.

Stephen Hawking is definitely out, for obvious reasons.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt would also be out, even though he was lame through polio.

There is a countless list of other great names who would be outside of Marie Stopes' perfect world.

If one looks at the first abortion clinics set up in the UK and US, they correlate rather suspiciously with large immigrant populations, especially black areas. I'm sure the feminazis would love to hear that their hero was an out and out racist.

26 May 2010 at 22:21  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, a few quotes from this vile women should inform readers of all they need to know:

"Crushed by the burden of taxation which they have not the resources to meet and to provide for children also: crushed by the national cost of the too numerous children of those who do not contribute to the public funds by taxation, yet who recklessly bring forth from an inferior stock individuals who are not self-supporting, the middle and superior artisan classes have, without perceiving it, come almost to take the position of that ancient slave population."


OR try this one :

"Those who are grown up in the present active generations, the matured and hardened, with all their weak nesses and flaws, cannot do very much, though they may do something with themselves. They can, however, study the conditions under which they came into being, discover where lie the chief sources of defect, and eliminate those sources of defect from the coming generation so as to remove from those who are still to be born the needless burdens the race has carried"

Marie C. Stopes, "Racial and Imperial Aspects, (section) II", p. 207 et. seq. (this quotation, see p. 208-9), in: The Control of Parenthood, various authors, James Marchant, ed., 1920

26 May 2010 at 22:30  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Christians have been pestered by fatwas of various origins since just after the day of Pentecost. We are still here.

Even Niestzche seemed to understand: 'That which does not kill me makes me stronger.'

'Half baptist'??

26 May 2010 at 22:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the socialist traitors such as Anabaptist, D.Singh, Viking and Lavendon :

"Wir Nationalen Sozialisten,
Wir wollen keine Reaktion
Wir hassen Juden und Marxisten
Ein Hoch der deutschen Revolution
(Refrain)
Drum Bruder auf die Barrikaden!
Der Führer ruft, so folget gleich
Die Reaktion hat ihn verraten,
Und dennoch kommit das Dritte Reich! "

26 May 2010 at 22:54  
Anonymous Oswin said...

I don't know if it's a Christian point of view, but I'll ask this regardless: stop abortion and do WHAT with the consequences??? If you are not prepared to raise what someone else does not want; then your opinion is superfluous.

Please don't tell me that there are a shortage of babies available for adoption, because that statistic applies to white bables only. If you don't intend to put your money where your mouth is, and adopt a black baby, then you are just mouthing-off.

Learn to settle for the hypocrisy that is abortion, else you'll fail to address the far greater hypocrisy of abandonment!

I've spent half a life-time dealing with the rejected. NOT being born is the lesser of several evils as far as I'm concerned.

26 May 2010 at 23:01  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Jihad, oh please....

Anon at 22.54, please take your Nazi rantings and shove them where the sun does not shine.

Thankyou and good night.

26 May 2010 at 23:02  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Oswin,

I'd say life is usually the lesser of two evils, especially considering as it is not evil. Ask a child who was brought up in foster care whether he'd prefer to die.

We do not kill people because we think that they might have a hard life. Who are we to make that decision for them?

26 May 2010 at 23:08  
Blogger srizals said...

Anon 20:50, stop being anonymously annoying. Have some guts, if you can.

Wannabe Muslim, stop trying to be me. Be yourself. Poor you.

Jihad, it's f-a-t-w-a, gosh and its not decedant, its d-e-c-a-d-e-n-t, Wannabe smart! And stop pretending you have a wife, you're Homo ok!

26 May 2010 at 23:11  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

'Fetus' has no 'o' in British English. This is a case of false etymology. His Grace has got this right in the past.

26 May 2010 at 23:13  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Lord Lavendon at 22.30 - and you know better? Your answer is what exactly? Tell me what our present society displays that proves the woman wrong?

At best, we cut our coat according to our cloth; failure to do so creates misery. Everything else is just words...

26 May 2010 at 23:15  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Lakester - I have known too many who have chosen death. Whatever my faults, I am no longer guilty of believing the fairy-story of 'care in the community' - and I referred, obliquely, to those who are NOT successfully fostered or adopted.

26 May 2010 at 23:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just searched "Adolf Hitler and Marie Stopes" on the Marie Stopes International website and was informed there were no entries. Isn't that odd.
Edward Sutherland

26 May 2010 at 23:38  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

"To avoid discussion of when a ball of cells becomes a human being can we consider very early abortions say within the first week or two, what makes that ball of cells so special that a young woman should not be allowed to decide that she doesn’t want to be a mother yet" [sic]. — gresham58 (26 May 2010 11:17)

The essence of your argument is that 2 cells are unimportant, presumably on the grounds that 2 is a "small" number. Yet, if I were to shoot 2 policemen, such an action would be one more than sufficient to guarantee my arrest. Abortion proponents who proclaim that a fetus is merely a small "ball of cells" ignore the fact that a fetus weighing only a few grams contains more than 10^20 atoms --millions of times more atoms than the number stars in the milky way. Moreover, the genetic characteristics and level of complexity of the human fetus is such as to entitle him/her to the label "human". Size does not matter. We are not free to kill babies on the pretext that they are "small". Relative terms such as "small" are very misleading and unscientific. Human life begins at the moment of conception


You also claim that:

"In fact to make the issue even more clear cut let us imagine that the couple in question have been using contraception but that the condom split ..."


You seem to be arguing that the of killing an "unintended" (due to condom failure) baby is less unethical than the killing one which was intended. One fails to see how.

27 May 2010 at 04:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

In Jeremiah Chapter 1 we read

4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying,
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

If God knew us before we were born a foetus is more than just a collection of cells.

27 May 2010 at 10:56  
Blogger English Viking said...

Oswin,

We could solve a large part of by adoption. Ethnic minorities make up less than 10% of the population, and also tend to have higher birth-rates, so even if their part of the stats include an over-representation of 100% and were an intractable problem, we could reduce the killings by 80%.

There are plenty of people and organisations who would welcome the opportunity to adopt/foster a non-white child.

Jihad @ 22:13

A fatwa against me and mine came into force the moment I put my faith in Jesus, The Christ, The Son of God (yes, God does have a Son). One more won't make any difference.

Anonymous 22:54

You call me a 'Socialist traitor', but your syntax leaves things unclear. Do you mean I am a Socialist who is a traitor to some cause or other and if so, which cause, or; do you mean that I am a traitor to Socialism?

I have been called an awful lot of things in my time, most of them un-postable, but 'Socialist' is probably the most unjustified and offensive.

With regard to the accusations of 'traitor', it is not possible to betray something you have always opposed.

27 May 2010 at 11:17  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Oswin,

I do know better than to go along with an ideology that saw half of Europe burnt to a cinder whilst the minorities of Europe were systematically slaughtered. I know better than to approve of eugenics and the terrible consequences of breeding a 'master race'.

what proves this woman wrong?

I would have thought the quotes provided were evidence enough!

Calling human beings 'inferior stock', or that humanity should seek to eliminate 'defects' in humans to me does sound very Nazi like and we know what happened during the time of the 3rd Reich....

27 May 2010 at 12:57  
Anonymous len said...

If as the pro abortionists suggests the 'foetus'is merely a bundle of cells,no problem.
But if as God states this is a living human being were are dealing with then we have a big problem "The Lord called me before my birth. From within the womb he called me by my name...He said to me, `You are my servant'..." (Isaiah 49:1,3 TLB); "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb" (Psalm 139:13)

27 May 2010 at 13:42  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

Graham Davis said...
"There is no metaphysical reality just unreality so your point, and I have no idea what it was, is somewhat undermined."

The real unreality is arguing a point having "no idea what it was". Conclusions without arguments are vacuous.

27 May 2010 at 14:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is so like Margaret Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood in the US. Her ties to Eugenics and the Eugenic ties to Hitler are scarey. Sanger admitted she spoke to the KLAN and yet today Planned Parenthood's top award is named after this KLAN Speaker: The Margaret Sanger Award. There is a stunning documentary which delves into the eugenics and racist connections to Sanger and her founders. It is called: Maafa21 and worth watching all 100% documented 2.5 hours. You can preview it here: http://www.maafa21.com

27 May 2010 at 16:50  
Anonymous Simon I said...

'Channel Four TV Marie Stopes 'Abortion' advertisement 10.10 pm Monday 24 May 2010. I object to this advertisement in the strongest terms as it is completely misleading. It is what it doesn't say. It doesn't give a realistic picture or the terrible lasting effects an abortion can have on a woman for the rest of her life. Neither does it mention alternatives to abortion. But most of all it is callous in its approach to the healthy unborn child, as though the unborn child has no value whatsoever. It is a very sad day that Channel 4 have crossed this line in helping this vile business just to make money. Over 97% of the 200,000 plus abortions every year in England and Wales are for social reasons only. A mother's womb is now the most dangerous place to be; when it should be the safest.

Advertisements like this encourage more abortions when everyone should be working towards reducing the appalling number of abortions in the UK every year. Over 6 million healthy unborn babies killed since the 1967 Abortion Act; about the same number of innocent Jews killed by the Nazis before and during the second world war. It is perhaps no surprise that the 'Marie Stopes' name is connected to both human holocausts: Both horrific and barbaric events are about the killing of innocent and defenseless human life en masse and both supported by the Government of the day.

'As a society, we are only as civilised as we treat the most vulnerable amongst us'.

27 May 2010 at 17:46  
Anonymous Adrian Peirson said...

7.2 million since 1970, congratulations 'ladies'

29 May 2010 at 02:10  
Anonymous Simon I said...

Next time you meet a poor child from a poor neighbourhood, or a physically or mentally disabled person, or a person who has a cleft lip or club foot, or perhaps someone from an ethnic minority where males are more valued than females but were unfortunate to be born female instead of a wanted male….ask them as simple question, are you glad to be alive or do you wish your mother had excercised her right to choose; to abort you?

29 May 2010 at 11:40  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Simon, let not the foul practices of other religions/cultures confuse the issue at hand!

29 May 2010 at 17:23  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older