Monday, August 29, 2011

Nadine Dorries is a victim of Lib-Lab sexism


Dr Evan Harris (LibDem), David Allen Green (LibDem) and Chris Bryant (Labour) aren’t at all happy with Nadine Dorries. In what is being billed as the biggest shake-up to abortion law in a generation, her modest proposal is that women should be offered independent counselling to give them a breathing space before proceeding with termination. ‘Pro-life’ campaigners estimate that some 60,000 children would be saved every year. ‘Pro-choice’ campaigners insist that it will mean more stress for the women concerned.

His Grace reported on this some months ago. At the moment, abortion providers like BPAS and Marie Stopes offer counselling to women, but they are paid only when the termination is carried out. Each year in the UK, some 180,000 children are dispensed with through this method, at a cost of some £60 million to the tax-payer. There is an evident bias because companies like BPAS and Marie Stopes are profit-making businesses and have a vested interest in procuring abortion: when women are dissuaded, it hits the profit margin. There is nothing independent about BPAS advice or impartial about Maries Stopes' counselling at all. Mrs Dorries says:
‘Abortion has become a factory-efficient process that denies women the right to independent, professional counselling. Many women who are given the opportunity to talk through their situation in a calm environment cease to panic and begin to consider other options. It is every woman’s right to be given the choice of access to professional help at the time of a crisis pregnancy.’
According to former MP Dr Evan Harris, Nadine Dorries is ‘mad’. According to lawyer David Allen Green, she is ‘illiberal’. According to Labour MP Chris Bryant, she is 'misguided'.

What could possibly be ‘illiberal’ about wanting to give information to women contemplating an abortion, which is the standard throughout the European Union? What is ‘mad’ about a policy which seeks to give women a real choice, which the ‘pro-choice’ lobby profess to support, while anyone with half a brain (who hasn’t been aborted) knows that ‘pro-choice’ is simply a euphemism for ‘pro-abortion’? What is ‘misguided’ about ensuring that counselling is truly independent and that pregnant women are given complete information about all their options, including that of adoption?

One might expect The Guardian to have a go at these evil Christian activists, and seek to portray Mrs Dorries as some self-righteous, swivel-eyed, loony Christian right-winger, of the sort they have in abundance in the United States. One might expect an extremist atheist secularist like Dr Evan Harris to manifest prejudice against Evangelical Christians, or refer to Pope Benedict XVI as a dictator.

But it is to be observed that these proposed amendments to the Health Bill also have the support of Labour’s Frank Field MP. He is backing the change, and explains: ‘I’m anxious that taxpayers’ money is used so that people can have a choice – we are paying for independent counselling and that’s what should be provided.’

But Messrs Harris, Green and Bryant ignore him, and all aim for the woman. It is a despicable Lib-Lab strategy to attack the easy target, because Frank Field is male and enormously respected on all sides of the House. His Grace asked Chris Bryant last night why he was focusing on the fairer sex, but reply came there none. Their attack is sexist; a reaction against conservative feminism which seeks nothing but the right to education. Shame on them.

All across Europe, there is legislation requiring informed consent, and these countries have significantly lower abortion rates. In the UK, there is no requirement in law for women to be informed about the abortion procedure or the alternatives. If you want evidence of the present ‘conveyer belt’ approach to abortion, read this report in the Telegraph, and then thank God there are people like Nadine Dorries and Frank Field in Parliament with the conviction to confront this systematic state slaughter of our children. Oh, and they're both Anglican, by the way.

And as you're praying for them, please also pray for Evan Harris, David Allen Green and Chris Bryant, and try to discern what their true motives may be.

90 Comments:

Blogger john in cheshire said...

And given that there are 200,000 or so abortions each year, if none of those poor souls had been killed, we wouldn't have needed any immigrants; we'd have bred our own replacement society and it would have been in the image of the indigenous population, not the socialist dystopia that they envisage for us.

29 August 2011 at 11:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Mrs Dorries believes only independent professional counsellors – such as BACP members – should be involved. Although a Christian herself, she does not believe that Christian counsellors are any more independent than those provided by abortion clinics."

At least she can see that.

29 August 2011 at 11:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see the Guardian has another take on it, along the lines of the 'cultural Marxist' meme that seems to have taken hold of some down here.

29 August 2011 at 11:11  
Blogger iamsparticuscom said...

@john in cheshire. Your argument here is flawed, immigration is not in response to this country lacking people who could do the jobs (see our countries Job Centres and youth unemployment rates for proof) but a complicated factors of the desirability of living in britain, EU internal migration laws, and the British culture and education system. This issue of abortion is massively important, too much so to use poor arguments to defend it.

29 August 2011 at 11:21  
Blogger Old Blue Eyes said...

Chris Bryant is an obnoxious squirt with a history of indiscretions that leave him with no authority to make derogatory comments about others. He sees in Nadine Dorries an easy target but don't expect him to repeat his criticism of her in respect of people like Frank Field whose views generally find favour with most fair minded people. The other two don't strike me as being of any consequence

29 August 2011 at 11:34  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Observations about sexism and religious fanaticism aside, the law to be properly applied surely requires independent counselling?

How can two doctors be satisfied before approving an abortion
there is no alterative and be acting in good faith without this?

The grounds for a legal abortion:

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Abortion 'on demand' is not lawful, although this is what has happened as predicted at the time this legislation was passed. 'Pro-choice' is not recognised in law.

I salute Nadine Dorries and Frank Field. Where are all the other MP's and when will they speak out?

29 August 2011 at 11:46  
Blogger Steve Kneale said...

@John in Cheshire, lets not make this a left/right thing. Talk of 'socialist dystopia' is unnecessary. There are plenty on the left, myself and the aforementioned Labour MP for Birkenhead included, who are in no way supporters of abortion and are horrified by it's increasing use.

This truly is not a left/right issue. In fact, as one on the left, I find it hard to understand how anyone who adopts the label for themselves can seriously suggest a women should not be in full receipt of the facts from an independent source before contemplating such a serious course of action.

Whilst I am by no means a Tory supporter, I quite agree that this case amounts to unfair attack of Nadine Dorries and am staggered that any individual, left or right, would suggest this an unreasonable proposal. I would expect nothing less from Dr Death (Evan Harris) but find the views of the others far more surprising. It is not so much their support for abortion which surprises, rather their complete indifference to the possibility of independent advice and the refusal to accept that paying abortion charities per act is a major problem.

29 August 2011 at 12:04  
Blogger Albert said...

It's hard to understand why anyone in favour of abortion should be opposed to women being given the opportunity to give informed consent. Isn't it supposed to be about her choice?

The reason the pro-death camp is opposed to freedom of information on this, is that they trade (literally it appears) off the fact that most people really don't know what an abortion involves. The pro-death camp realises, that the more people come to realise what abortion is, the more opposition to it will grow.

The enemy of the pro-choice camp is not Christianity. It is truth.

29 August 2011 at 12:06  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"The enemy of the pro-choice camp is not Christianity. It is truth."
Same difference.

29 August 2011 at 12:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

So who are "Right to Know Campaign Ltd", the registrant of the Right To Know website with its registered office at Gray's Inn in London? I'd like to know.

29 August 2011 at 12:39  
Blogger Albert said...

Quite right Sambo - but I meant it is not what might be regarded as a partisan (Christian) opposition, but is simply the truth about what abortion is.

29 August 2011 at 12:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

These people have a related facebook page too. No info about who they actually are on there either. Curious.

29 August 2011 at 12:46  
Blogger Aremay said...

Sadly, Your Grace, your argument is flawed. WHO research shows that the legality of abortion doesn't have a significant bearing on the number of abortions carried out in a year - what it does do is change how safe those abortions are. I wonder how many more dead mothers or deprived childhoods Nadine Dorries is willing to countenance in order to secure 60,000 fewer abortions each year.

Perhaps if Ms Dorries had made no mention of reducing the figure - as though we can set arbitrary targets for these things - then I'd have more patience. But her appalling track record in general and her position on this give me no faith. Government has no place in the uterus, regardless of the religious convictions of any percentage of the citizenry.

29 August 2011 at 12:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

The issue of abortion needs to be put before the people in the form of a referendum. The result not be questioned again for 12 years.

The ‘womans rights’ people know that everything they hold dear rests upon the disgusting practice of abortion on demand. Take that away, and we start to reverse their perversions of God’s intent for mankind. We should eventually return to a state where marriage is the preferred state, and women chaste, loyal, and dare I say it, ‘feminine’...

29 August 2011 at 12:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"We should eventually return to a state where marriage is the preferred state, and women chaste, loyal, and dare I say it, ‘feminine’..."

If they didn't work and looked after the home and kids for their working husbands instead then there might even be full employment in the UK.

29 August 2011 at 13:04  
Blogger albion said...

Chris Bryant is a former clergyman who resigned his Orders to become an MP. His commitment to Christianity is a thing of the past, along with his chastity. He has his reward now.
He plotted against Blair to install Brown.
So you wonder about his "true motives"?
Frank Field would skewer him if they ever clashed. Much easier to attack a less educated Christian woman of conservative views.

The liberal-left have always had a strong sexist element when they encounter women who don't fit their "narrative". Consider the way that Sarah Palin was subjected to sexist abuse by Democrats.

29 August 2011 at 13:12  
Blogger Camera Shy said...

I honestly wonder how many of the comments here are made by men and how many are made by women.

I also wonder if any of the people involved have ever had to make the decision over whether to have an abortion or not.

It has very little to do with politics and it frustrates me when people try and bring that into the debate.

I think 'praying for people' who disagree with you is also absurd.

Supporting women is about listening to what their concerns actually are and what their issues are. I have to say, looking at the appalling neglect that maternity services have suffered and the fact that women have suffered financially most over the last few years only goes to show that women's issues are still seen as somewhat unimportant by too many people.

And frankly religious issues should have nothing to do with it either. There is a sizeable percentage of the UK population who are agnostic or atheist; something that is perfectly within their rights.

The proposed changes don't solve the problem of profit making. They merely create another and pressure women another way. That's not helping women either. And sadly it seems to be the very point that is being missed.

29 August 2011 at 13:18  
Blogger Albert said...

I honestly wonder how many of the comments here are made by men and how many are made by women.

I also wonder if any of the people involved have ever had to make the decision over whether to have an abortion or not.


I wonder how many people who make that kind of comment have ever been aborted.

29 August 2011 at 13:25  
Blogger Gallovidian said...

Isn't Evan Harris the fellow known as Doctor Death? he has been discussed here before.

29 August 2011 at 13:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Camera Shy - “I also wonder if any of the people involved have ever had to make the decision over whether to have an abortion or not.”

You put abortion in the same context as to whether or not to change the car this year !

If you wish to live your life at such a low standard, off you go. There are others who hold more noble views on their existence and wish to stop this poison at source.

29 August 2011 at 13:32  
Blogger Albert said...

WHO research shows that the legality of abortion doesn't have a significant bearing on the number of abortions carried out in a year

How can anybody possibly know that? Is the idea that there were 200 000 abortions before it was legalised in the UK in the 1960s?!

One thing that would make a difference is proper information about what abortion is. How can anyone be opposed to that?

29 August 2011 at 13:32  
Blogger Chris said...

I stopped reading when you started calling foetus' 'children'.

Question begging of the worst possible kind...

29 August 2011 at 13:38  
Blogger Camera Shy said...

Personal insults are not needed. Just because I happen to believe different things. I have seen the very real distress it causes to have an unwanted pregnancy and to have to make the decision. The process of thought behind the decision is not simply black and white in the way in you imply and like to believe.

I do not know anyone who has been down that route and would compare it to anything like 'changing your car'. Frankly that comment only serves to strengthen the argument that I'm trying to make - that you don't fully understand and that you are somewhat patronising and actually bordered on agressive bullying tactics designed to guilt women into making a decision a certain way - the way YOU believe. Its the type of attitude that really does not help women.

My point is that it deserves compassion rather than judgement and condemnation regardless of what choices someone makes.

That to me is what Christian values should be about.

29 August 2011 at 13:50  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Sexism - alive and kicking in the Commons - surely not - they wouldn't go in for that in this modern age of equality in everything - would they?
No need to wonder why politics for many has become remote and a complete turn off.

I am not anti abortion but very much anti interference in peoples private lives. It is no more the State's right to impose childbirth against a woman's will than it was to burn women at the stake for allegedly practicing witchcraft. It is equally not right to deny her access to unbiased counsel, which she would certainly not get from any religious pro-life organisation. The woman must have the last word on the matter - she is the one who has to live with her decision for the rest of her life. No one, not even the woman herself, can possibly predict just how much she may or may not be affected psycologically but the decision must ultimately be hers.

In any case, who is so righteously qualified to sit in judgement on her even if they feel so 'driven' by their religious motivation?

I maintain it is the most basic human freedom to direct what happens to our selves, but the unborn, (specifically in the earliest stages) cannot be regarded as having rights that over-ride the will or well being of the mother.

How can it be the moral right of any one group to impose its will on those who do not even subscribe to their ethics or beliefs. It is simply cruel to bring forth an unwanted child that will undoubtedly be less advantaged or prepared to cope with life from the very start.

One only has to consider the plight of children born into British Victorian slums or even those today of Mumbai or any of the thousands of poverty ridden areas of the world, to see that humanity has a greater responsibility to the quality of life, as opposed to the simplistic 'right to life' of the unborn

29 August 2011 at 13:51  
Blogger Jack of Kent said...

Just for completeness:

1. Am not sexist;
2. Abortion is not a party issue.

Bu thank you for the prayers. This video may assist in your praying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRMiRFJzIKA

David Allen Green

29 August 2011 at 14:09  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Camera Shy

"My point is that it deserves compassion rather than judgement and condemnation regardless of what choices someone makes."

Yes, I agree.

However, do you accept there is a that is moral issue here? That an act can be 'evil' in and of itself, whatever the motives, and that it has significant consequences both for the individual concerned as well as a society as a whole?

I think it a healthy development for women to be offered counselling when facing a pregnacy traumatic for them and given space to weigh the alternatives. Be they Christian or not, they may come to regret a hasty decision.

So far as your observations about Christianity go, Jesus showed compassion to the woman about to be stoned for adultery but also commanded that she sin no more. As he pointed out none of us are without sin and you are right to draw attention to some of the more unhelpful under currents in the discussion.

29 August 2011 at 14:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Camera Shy - I do believe that compassion is what's needed in these circumstances, compassion within the law, which I would gleefully change tomorrow.

As a Christian myself, I have to follow the teachings of Christ, and what what his teachings are interpreted to be by men of the church. What follows is that life should be cherished. That to me is what Christian values should be about.

Abolishing abortion is not going to be so easy. Women’s attitudes are going to have to change regarding casual sex. After 40 years of continual success, the ‘womens righters’ are going to be furious. It will all be worth it in the end, with women restored to their special place in creation. Frankly, I hope I live long enough to see it...

29 August 2011 at 14:29  
Blogger Albert said...

I have seen the very real distress it causes to have an unwanted pregnancy and to have to make the decision.

No one is denying that Camera Shy. What I deeply resent, as a man, is any suggestion that because I am a man I am not entitled to an opinion on this matter. Every aborted child has a father, and about half of all aborted children are male. So how can someone be disqualified from commenting because one is male?

In any case, the suggestion that one needs to have experienced a situation to have a moral opinion on it, is abhorrent. You might as well say someone must be involved in child-abuse to hold the opinion that child-abuse is wrong.

The process of thought behind the decision is not simply black and white in the way in you imply and like to believe.

Who is implying that it is not, or believing that it is not? Once again, this is pure prejudice, aimed at curtailing the opinions of those with whom you disagree. Obviously, many women struggle with the decision. That does not alter the question of whether it is morally clear-cut.

My point is that it deserves compassion rather than judgement and condemnation regardless of what choices someone makes.

Certainly, one must offer compassion to such a woman, but the action itself must be condemned, if you believe, as I do, that abortion is murder. Your comment amounts to a demand that there be no opposition to abortion because it might hurt some women's feelings.

The proposed changes...merely create another and pressure women another way. That's not helping women either.

You mean it is not helping women to inform them about the decision they are making? How patronising towards women is that?!

29 August 2011 at 14:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Chris: "I stopped reading when you started calling foetus' 'children'. Question begging of the worst possible kind..."

Often done for emotive reasons too. This is the core point, really: is a foetus of (say) 10 weeks distinguishable from a child of (say) a year for the purpose of rights. It all follows from there.

As for counselling, that's about what a woman feels given her own circumstances. The actual facts of abortion are available to anyone who knows how to use google. There's no hiding that, or any intention to do so as far as I can see.

Abortion issues are not just about women. Or foetuses. They're about religious worldviews, moral duties to intervene, moral duties to allow choice, being responsibly for consequences, freedom, politics, power, social organisation, and so on. There's the potential for big players in all that.

So, who is behind that Right To Know organisation. Where's the money coming from? Who's lobbying? Or directing the lobbying? I'd like to know.

29 August 2011 at 14:43  
Blogger Camera Shy said...

Wars have been fought over what different men interpret Christ's teachings to have truly been about...

To say YOUR way is better than the way someone else views it, is unhelpful at best. At worst it creates conflict. Imposing your will on others never works. Its oppression.

I just love how you blame 'women's attitudes' to casual sex. I really do think that says it all. Nothing to do with men at all, is it?

On that note, Office of Inspector General, I guess I better get back to my kitchen sink, serving my husband, getting pregnant at the first possible opportunity and not having a free opinion.

29 August 2011 at 14:44  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

Camera Shy

OoIG is perhaps a tad old fashioned, bless him. However, would you care to address some of the points made by Dodo and Albert before retreating to domesticity?

29 August 2011 at 14:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Come now Camera Shy, I have to fight my corner, and by contributing to this site, you have invited me to do so.

As for saying my way is the best and you find it unhelpful and conflict creating, well that’s the human condition. I can and do have the same opinion about the abortionists.

The male element of course is nearly always the instigator when it comes to casual sex. If the man truly values his female friend, he will respect her wishes when she says ‘no’. It really is as easy as that.

Incidentally, I always listen to and value a woman’s thoughts on any matter...

29 August 2011 at 15:02  
Blogger Albert said...

Camera Shy,

Imposing your will on others never works. Its oppression.

Isn't that what abortion is?

29 August 2011 at 15:10  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

"Informed consent" i.e. freely given with full understanding.

Can it be "freely given" if it is an immediate reaction to a crisis given under stress?

Can it be with "full understanding" without exploring all the alternatives and their consequences?

29 August 2011 at 15:21  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

With virtually every other activity in life, we are encouraged to take independent advice if we have any doubts about what we are doing.
But apparently, when it comes to abortion, such independent advice seems to be considered unnecessary, presumably for fear that it might upset the business plans of abortion providers.
Does the BPAS ever suggest that a pregnancy should not be terminated and the child adopted? I doubt it, there's no money to be made from such a proposal.

29 August 2011 at 15:23  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Women’s attitudes are going to have to change regarding casual sex - when she says ‘no’


Oh those wanton women! - for the Chaps I suppose its ok is it - but with whom?

Why if its a moral issue do you seem to think its ok for men - What a stupid sexist remark - OIG you sound like a Muslim.

29 August 2011 at 15:23  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

This is getting weird. The Way of the Dodo makes a comment and then signs in as Man with No Name to invite a response (14:55). Is he Albert as well?

29 August 2011 at 15:30  
Blogger Albert said...

I think all this emphasis on OIG's comments is a bit a distraction. It seems to me he's been misrepresented. All he's saying is that abolishing abortion involves upsetting the so-called "feminists" isn't he? That doesn't at all support the allegations that he's blaming it all on women's (as opposed to men's) attitudes to sex.

Quite why the pro-death lobby wishes to misrepresent OIG's comment rather than engage in the many moral issues presented here is a total mystery.

29 August 2011 at 15:36  
Blogger Albert said...

You're quite right Johnny. I write all the comments on this page.

Including yours.

29 August 2011 at 15:36  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert (15:36)—Of course you write my comments. And everybody else’s. There, there. Hush.

29 August 2011 at 16:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

OIG: "The male element of course is nearly always the instigator when it comes to casual sex."

Hmmm. You haven't been out much 'downtown' these days by the look of it.

29 August 2011 at 16:41  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

OIG: "The male element of course is nearly always the instigator when it comes to casual sex."

Speaking for your self of course - 'Brace your self Hilda!'

29 August 2011 at 16:47  
Blogger Old Blue Eyes said...

Albert (15:36)
Is your name Hari by any chance?

29 August 2011 at 16:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Is there compelling evidence that BPAS do not provide unweighted advice? That is, that women are encouraged to think through all the options available to them.

29 August 2011 at 16:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dreadnought

I was making the point that if abortion is ended (...as a cruelly drastic form of family planning...) then yes, attitudes are going to have to change. It would be unreasonable to end the convenience of abortion without at least looking towards who are using it the most. Unfortunately, a large number are teenagers in their first flush of adulthood. Teenagers have never been better informed, and know exactly if they participate in the act and conceive, a few tears and running to mummy and daddy and they’ll make everything alright. Mummy and daddy will explain to family and friends ‘that she was far to young to be tied down / She has her education to finish / Has whole life in front of her.’ etc. Meanwhile, daughter is in her room with a smile like a Cheshire cat’s. Teenagers are like that...

29 August 2011 at 16:54  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr DanJ0, it may seem rather strange for you to keep going on about the anonymity of people identifying themselves only as 'Right To Know' (whatever that is: I have no idea), and yet you merrily disport yourself making comments on the blog of someone who identifies himself only as Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.

And is your name really DanJ0 (with a zero)?

And Mrs (or so it seems) Camera Shy, there are two parties involved in an abortion (in addition to the abortionist), namely the mother and the unborn child. I am not myself a woman, but I used to be an unborn child, and I'm very glad the law protected me when in the womb.

29 August 2011 at 16:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0

Point taken. There are some right sights down there. Fortunately, they’ve kindly allowed themselves to be covered in tattoos and drink Stella by the pint for easy identification...

29 August 2011 at 16:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Anabaptist: "I am not myself a woman, but I used to be an unborn child, and I'm very glad the law protected me when in the womb."

The people who His Grace and some of the comment posters down here would like to see executed by the State were once foetuses too. It doesn't amount to much really, even to religionists by the look of it.

Perhaps we should be encouraging unprotected casual sex as well as discouraging 'convenience' abortion? Think of the unborn children we're stopping by not nobbing fertile members of the opposite sex at every opportunity.

29 August 2011 at 17:21  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

'...his identity is fairly well known...'

He denies it.

29 August 2011 at 17:21  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Who is the Archbishop?

He's allusive as 'The Banker' on 'Deal or no Deal'.

29 August 2011 at 17:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

*shrugs*

As I have said before, if one is going to write a blog and promote it to the world then a nom de plume is a very good idea even if people know, or think they know, who is behind it. It creates a necessary divide between the real person and the opinions, which may be hyperbole, so that one can say "ah, that was the character saying that" to promote a discussion. It's an up and coming issue in our digitally connected world, mark my words.

29 August 2011 at 17:28  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

Johnny Rottenborough

They seek me here; they me there; they seek the Man with No Name everywhere.

Am I you?

29 August 2011 at 17:35  
Blogger Albert said...

Am I you?

No, you're me, apparently. And so's Dodo.

29 August 2011 at 18:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I'm just back from the 'Mouse and Wheel' = I'll go back if there's nothing happening here...

29 August 2011 at 19:44  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

(This isn’t to say that being anti-choice is the wrong position – just that Cranmer’s logic seems a bit topsy turvy.)

From current post now on going at:-

http://hurryupharry.org/2011/08/29/amendments-to-the-health-and-social-care-bill-abortion-counselling/

29 August 2011 at 19:45  
Blogger DizzyRingo said...

The good thing about the ability to have a legal abortion is that it has done away with the back street abortionists.

However, every abortion is a tragedy - but there are clear cases where it is an advantageous option - in rape cases for example.

If counsellors are good then I have no problem - the trouble is that counselling is a growth industry and I am not sure of the quality of their advice. And I don't think I would want counselling from someone employed or recommended by the abortion clinic. You do need to bear in mind that Marie Stopes was very keen on eugenics.

Actually there is no excuse for unwanted children - there are contraceptives and the morning after pill.

29 August 2011 at 21:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dizzy Ringo

I'll think you'll find nearly every abortion is a convenience. We live in a sick society that only pays abortion advisors by the destruction of the foetus...

29 August 2011 at 21:26  
Blogger Albert said...

The good thing about the ability to have a legal abortion is that it has done away with the back street abortionists.

That is a good thing certainly. But if something is wrong, it remains wrong even if it is done for a good reason. Consequently, the back-street abortionist argument begs the question.

It also fails to attend to the fact that in this country there have almost certainly been more abortions because abortion is legal. Thus overall, there have been more deaths. So again, abortion must be justified on other grounds.

29 August 2011 at 22:02  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

Dizzy Ringo said ...
"Actually there is no excuse for unwanted children - there are contraceptives and the morning after pill."

Morally is there a difference between use of the contraceptive pill and abortion?

The 'pill' prevents a fertilised egg from attaching successfully to the mother's womb. Is this new life any less entitled to reach its full potential?

29 August 2011 at 23:53  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Albert said...
"'Am I you?'"
No, you're me, apparently. And so's Dodo."

I might be you but are you me?

30 August 2011 at 01:22  
Blogger Albert said...

The 'pill' prevents a fertilised egg from attaching successfully to the mother's womb. Is this new life any less entitled to reach its full potential?

Exactly. Morally, the morning after pill is just an abortion. This is why its supporters are keen to force pharmacists to supply the morning-after pill, even if it is against their conscience to do so. There must be no freedom to defend the unborn child.

30 August 2011 at 10:33  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

An interesting thought here: Under present advice from centres of Pro-Abortion such as "Education for Choice" and the Humanist Society, Stephen Hawking would have been aborted ...

So would a number of other people who have made massive contributions to our sciences, arts and, dare one admit it, public life.

30 August 2011 at 12:52  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

Gray Monk

How many potential Stephen Hawkins have been aborted?

The numbers of abortions world wide are staggering.

30 August 2011 at 14:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"How many potential Stephen Hawkins have been aborted?"

Well, there are 61 million of the rest of us here in the UK and 1 of him. Assuming for the sake of argument 150K abortions on average since 1967, that's nearly 61 million. So, maybe 1. Except we already have him alive.

30 August 2011 at 19:23  
Blogger tertius said...

All this concern for the mother is well and good, but it is the total and complete - zero - lack of concern for the unborn child that is most chilling and inhumane.

Who is the weakest, most defenceless party in an abortion? The question is apparently avoided by the invoking of the "foetus". But a foetus is a developing human being?

Isn't it most decidedly wicked and ignorant of an unaborted foetus grown to adult manhood to cavilierly consign (without even a hint of doubt or humility) 60,000 or 150,000 developing human foetuses annually to a grizzly dismembering death?

And these same unaborted adult humans suddenly get on their high moral horse about the evilness of the execution of a small number of violent serial killers and sex/murderers for crimes against society and sins against humanity while all the time barnstorming for the mass murder of innocents.

It is indeed a mad world, turned upside down.

31 August 2011 at 09:10  
Blogger William said...

tertius

Indeed. The perversity of the pro-abortion/"choice" camp is clear to see by their opposition to the Dorries/Field proposals.

31 August 2011 at 11:20  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

DanJO and Man with No Name; since many children out of the 150k aborted each year are aborted for "medical" reasons such as (according to the NHS report) genetic defects, familial predisposition to certain genetic malformations and so on, we have no real way of knowing how many Stephen Hawkings have been "terminated." The list of those who weren't includes Winston Churchill (bi-polar), Adolf Hitler (likewise), Beethoven and several others. Because they are terminated we have no way of knowing what their potential was ...

31 August 2011 at 13:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

tertius: "All this concern for the mother is well and good, but it is the total and complete - zero - lack of concern for the unborn child that is most chilling and inhumane."

There's not a complete lack of concern for the foetus with me. It certainly has ethical value. It's just not a child. Like many people who wax lyrical on this topic, you make the mistake of begging the question in your arguments. You probably don't even realise it either.

31 August 2011 at 19:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Monk: "Because they are terminated we have no way of knowing what their potential was ..."

Or, indeed, the potential of all those who don't come into being because we don't nob fertile members of the opposite sex at every opportunity. Get out there. Shag away madly for Potential's sake, we might all depend on it! :O

31 August 2011 at 19:34  
Blogger tertius said...

DanJ0,

I am not begging the question nor waxing lyrical. I am speaking plainly.

Which you might consider doing instead of using a pathetic Newspeak phrase like "[a foetus] has... ethical value". Do you hear yourself?

You "know" that the foetus is not a child, but you seem unable to acknowledge that the foetus is a unique living being. Instead you grandly grant it "ethical value".

Does one also know exactly when one ceased to be a child and became an adult? Or when one ceased to be a fool and became wise?

1 September 2011 at 02:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

tertius: "Which you might consider doing instead of using a pathetic Newspeak phrase like "[a foetus] has... ethical value". Do you hear yourself?"

Yes I hear myself. It's a biological phrase with a specific meaning, not Orwellian Newspeak. You need to reread that book, I think, if you think the form of it might be. You've misunderstood the idea in the book.

"You "know" that the foetus is not a child, but you seem unable to acknowledge that the foetus is a unique living being. Instead you grandly grant it "ethical value"."

You're inferring incorrectly there. The foetus is a unique living thing in my mind. Is that plain enough? A cow is a unique living thing too as it happens. Think on that when you next eat a burger. Being a unique living thing is therefore not sufficient, even if it is necessary, to be treated in the same way as a child.

Certainly for the first and most of the second trimester, it's not a child. At most stages, it's not sufficiently human to have a right to life like an actual child has. In fact, it's alive but not actually experiencing its own life. As far as I am concerned, that's a key attribute.

Initially, it's two cells fused into one called a zygote. A zygote is not a child. Then it's a small cluster of cells, called a blastocyst. A blastocyst is not a child. It then develops over time, acquiring biological function, initially as an embryo and then as a foetus. For a large chunk of its life, a foetus is not a child. At some point, it becomes an in utero baby and eventually a truly independent being.

"Does one also know exactly when one ceased to be a child and became an adult? Or when one ceased to be a fool and became wise?"

How about when a hen's egg becomes a chicken, and the stages inbetween? I dare say there's little confusion there in the real world. You can dip your toasty soldiers in one at the start as it's a yolky egg. At some point, it becomes unsuitable for breakfast but it's not sufficiently chicken to be thought of one or, indeed, to survive as one. Eventually the egg cracks and ... hurrah! It's a chicken.

1 September 2011 at 03:43  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJ0

"Initially, it's two cells fused into one called a zygote. A zygote is not a child. Then it's a small cluster of cells, called a blastocyst. A blastocyst is not a child. It then develops over time, acquiring biological function, initially as an embryo and then as a foetus. For a large chunk of its life, a foetus is not a child. At some point, it becomes an in utero baby and eventually a truly independent being."

And that's where Christians and atheists part company.

From conception (call this a zygote in scientific/medical speak) life with all its potential has been created. This potential is what one Church seeks to defend.

The Roman Catholic Church says that human life begins when the woman's egg is fertilised by a male sperm.

From that moment a unique life begins, independent of the life of the mother and father.

Each new life that begins at this point is not a potential human being but a human being with potential.

"Frequently man lives as if God did not exist, and even puts himself in God's place... He claims for himself the Creator's right to interfere in the mystery of human life. Rejecting divine law and moral principles, he openly attacks the family."
(Pope John Paul II, 2002)

1 September 2011 at 14:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And that's where Christians and atheists part company."

It's where some Christians and atheists part. Your Catholic stuff is exactly that: Catholic. I'm well aware of it too, you're not telling me anything new. But it doesn't necessarily hold for other people outside of that religio-political organisation. So, convince us if you can (presumably by hiding the god stuff under the carpet) but I have to say that the various people who have tried with me have not been compelling. In fact, it always just ends up at god stuff, or an almost inevitable bolt for cover when the mental lives of animals comes up, as the argument finally peters out. I have grown tried of the attempts, truth be told. It gets tedious after a while listening to the same regurgitation of religious doctrine and/or unstated and unrecognised philosophical assumptions.

1 September 2011 at 18:12  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJ0

Disagree with the moral argument if you choose, that's your right.

Do not deny there is a moral argument. That just makes you look silly.

Have you researched philosophical arguments based on natural moral reasoning? You should; it's where the significance of human life with potential becomes relevant.

1 September 2011 at 19:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Do not deny there is a moral argument. That just makes you look silly."

I don't. It's the premises of the argument that I won't accept. Therefore, the argument may be valid but it is not sound to me.

Of course, if we pretend the god stuff is not there for the bulk of the debate, though we know it's there and is probably creating begging-the-question issues, then we're probably assessing things relative to something else in the real world.

So, we might look at what the right to life most of us recognise for our fellow citizens actually means and whether that sensibly applies to foetuses. This is where my previously posted ethical dilemmas have come in.

We might look at end-of-life scenarios too to see what a right to life actually means and ought to mean. That might have ramifications for our understanding of so-called foetal rights ... which I think are essentially duties.

And so on.

1 September 2011 at 20:26  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 September 2011 at 01:37  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJ0

It might help if you did some research into the moral law arguments. They are not based on 'God' as such but on philosophical reasoning.

Google it ...

2 September 2011 at 01:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The Christian version of it, I suppose, if you're actually talking about 'natural law'.

2 September 2011 at 07:48  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJ0

Maybe ..

Perhaps you should be grateful your mother 'chose' to allow your life to continue. Think if she hadn't, you wouldn't be here wrestling with your ethical dilemmas.

Why shouldn't every life, every human being with potential, be given the same opportunity?

2 September 2011 at 10:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Perhaps you should be grateful your mother 'chose' to allow your life to continue. Think if she hadn't, you wouldn't be here wrestling with your ethical dilemmas."

I see you have immediately fallen down the hole. If I were not here then I wouldn't be able to regret it. Why? Because I would never have existed as a person even if my DNA was packaged up in some chromosomes and those chromosomes were being replicated.

If my mother had married the man she might have rather than my father then I wouldn't be here either. I should be grateful I suppose that she married my father and had me rather than her marrying the other man and having another child who was not me? Think of the poor child who might have lost out there. I'm actually beginning to feel guilty now.

Perhaps she should have shgged around when she left my father and had other children so that they would be grateful that she did rather than now regretting it and crying into their non-existing pillows from their non-existence.

"Why shouldn't every life, every human being with potential, be given the same opportunity?"

Why stop at the potential existing in a zygote i.e. a personless single-celled nominally human life? There's potential in ovums and sperms which just need the opportunity to fuse together and a womb wall to attach to for the duration. Those ovums are crying out, in little kiddy voices no-one can hear, for the opportunity.

Alternatively, perhaps one needs enough of a brain to host a mind which makes the human life capable of actually experiencing life in itself before we start to think of them as people like you or me. What's actually wrong with that approach instead?

2 September 2011 at 17:18  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

The natural moral law point is that you are are here and would not reasonably wish non-existence for yourself.

Or would you!

2 September 2011 at 19:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "The natural moral law point is that you are are here and would not reasonably wish non-existence for yourself."

That's because I'm a thinking, feeling being experiencing my own life. Unlike a zygote. Zygotes don't wish for existence or wish to avoid non-existence. They're a single cell. They don't think or feel at all.

2 September 2011 at 20:13  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Missing the point ... missing the point!

Thought by now you'd have researched the natural law argument.

2 September 2011 at 22:47  
Blogger Terry Bedwas and Machen Liberal (was) said...

Nadine I wish you the best in your campaign, as I had a wife whom went through two abortions - then screamed when I did not bring her flowers to the ward - where her and her friend Diane had both had an abortion the first time - years later she told people it was that I had beaten her and she did not want another - she told me to sign the form, or she would kill our child - the child grew up and he then wanted his many concubines outside marriage to want abortions - he is a Party chairs-person in South Wales Caerphilly, not Liberal, Plaid, or Labour. I wish you well.

2 September 2011 at 23:22  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Terry Bedwas and Machen Liberal (was)

You cannot post stuff like this anonymously in the public domain identifying individuals and making possible libelous remarks. It's bad form.

3 September 2011 at 01:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^ Terry you really need to delete that pronto.

"Thought by now you'd have researched the natural law argument."

Dodo, I have a philosophy degree. It's impossible not to have come across it before, especially with regard to political philosophy. If you have a specific point or area then you need to make it and we can tackle it on another thread when appropriate as this will dip below the line shortly.

3 September 2011 at 07:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Even a couple of keywords like Aristotle and teleological will do if that's where you are headed.

3 September 2011 at 07:35  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJ0

Start by Googling:

'Aquinas on Human Ensoulment, Abortion and the Value of Life.'
JOHN HALDANE and PATRICK LEE

This will give you a flavour of the theological and philosophical issues the Church has addressed down the centuries.

It is an introduction and raises some important issues. The cited references are valuable if one wants to delve deeper.

3 September 2011 at 11:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mr Aquinas rears his head again. I have already worked through Edward Feser's book, on recommendation, which I have to say is quite well-written although I am not at all taken with teleological thought. I don't mind buying books on spec but they must be more than mere Catholic or teleological apologism. I'll look into it.

3 September 2011 at 11:58  
Blogger len said...

'And as you're praying for them, please also pray for Evan Harris, David Allen Green and Chris Bryant, and try to discern what their true motives may be.'
..........
Power, position,Wealth.

Come on on Your Grace they are only human,(well they are politicians) almost human.

4 September 2011 at 09:01  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older