Sunday, October 13, 2013

Feminists fight like girls when it comes to sex-selective abortion


From Brother Ivo:

Let us not kid one another. Although the approach of the DPP toward sex-selective abortion is equally applicable to boys or girls - and to the gay or transgendered too, in the unlikely event of a genetic component being identified - the vast majority of the children butchered and sent down the sluice will be little girls.

There may be a handful of radical feminists who would reject a male child, but it is the values of several significant ethnic or religiously-defined cultures which will be driving the decisions of the majority of those seeking sex-selected terminations, and within those cultures, the girl child is regarded as of distinctly lesser value.

Under such value systems, girls need not be educated; they need to be covered; they present a constant threat to one's honour by their weakness, ignorance, or loose morals; and they cost more than boys because you have to pay a dowry to get them off your hands. Who needs a fourth?

Could there be anything more offensive to Feminism? Is there anything that confronts its declared assertion of indistinguishable existential equality greater than the notion that a child's potential may be calmly snuffed out as soon as the female sex is discovered, for it affronts one's expectation?

By making sex-selective abortion routinely possible, the decision will make mothers within male-dominated communities more vulnerable to male bullying, and less empowered to protect the baby toward whom they may harbour perfectly ordinary maternal feelings and acceptance. That, however, is not enough: such mothers live within cultures which are alien and impenetrable to the progressive mind which gave rise to Feminism. Those cultures are antithetical to its ideals, yet our feminists seem content to make common cause with their ideological opponents.

Brother Ivo has had the benefit of a wide and varied circle of friends and associates from which he has learnt much. He vividly recalls a friend from one of those communities as he patiently explained that those outside his culture can never fully appreciate the power structure. He explained that even he, a professional of 40 years, a sophisticated British-educated man of independent means, was utterly unable to act against the will of his father and that would remain the case until his father died. That is a real Patriarchy.

Only when the power of that cultural influence is understood does the full impact of the DPP's misjudgement come into focus, and with it the appalling betrayal of their cause by the silence of British feminists.

Within the communities where sex selection will largely take place, an assertion of "the woman's right to choose" is, frankly, risible. Those who cannot choose what they wear, where they go, what they believe, or whom they may meet or even marry, are not going to afforded the freedom to choose what to do with their own bodies. A significant number could testify to this by referring to their own genital mutilation - another instance where the DPP and Britain's progressives have signally failed to use the law and to apply it to the protection of the truly vulnerable.

What we shall have is pressure on mothers applied deep within these communities. Physical abuse may occur, but its implied threat will probably be enough. The mere contemplation of the consequences of non-compliance may induce enough stress to meet whatever criteria may be prescribed as sufficient, be they devised by the DPP or the BMA.

Regardless of how high the bar may be set, one may be assured that some, within such communities or outside, will always be happy to sign away lives in return for a ready supply of patients seeking the service.

The women will not come as confident or free-minded, but as supplicants to a second patriarchal system, for most of the doctors benefitting and judging will be men. Their say so is needed, but the process will have started with the husbands, fathers and other male members of the community who set these standards.

This, we are to believe, 'empowers' women.

Those who protest the inequalities within the House of Bishops, those who are affronted by Miss World contests or all-male Morris Dancing sides, have become supine and contemptible on this issue. Where is their outrage at this casual downgrading of equality? Where is their assertion of sisterly support to mothers and girl children alike? Who amongst them is saying that these value judgments are simply offensive to our Western notions of equality?

When those of the mindset of the Taliban reflect upon this and hear Britain's feminists agreeing that femaleness can indeed be regarded as reasonably inducing emotional angst and mental illness, they surely will welcome the support of such women who are now explicitly agreeing with them that femaleness in a child can be distasteful, disappointing, an unnecessary drain on the family, and so best avoided.

This is utterly intellectually absurd, but it will keep the real misogynists happy.

British feminists may talk a good fight - but when it comes down to it, they fight like girls.

Brother Ivo is the Patron Saint of Lawyers

84 Comments:

Blogger seanrobsville said...

When Tony Blair invited those millions of Muslims into Cool Britannia, he was confident that within a few years they would all turn into metrosexual Guardian-readers with an unswerving devotion to the Labour party.

What went wrong?

13 October 2013 at 10:52  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Brother Ivo,

This is the third post in four days on the subject of sex-selective abortions. Is it your considered opinion, and is it His Grace's considered opinion, that the only thing wrong with the Abortion Act 1967, as it currently stands, is that it legalises sex-selective abortions?

On a minor point, Brother Ivo, you recall a conversation in which "He explained that even he, a professional of 40 years, a sophisticated British-educated man of independent means, was utterly unable to act against the will of his father and that would remain the case until his father died."

Without wishing to pry into your private life, Brother Ivo, it would be interesting to learn what your reply was when your friend told you that. Here are two possibilties that spring to mind:

1. "Have you really been brainwashed to that extent?"

2. "I disagree. You believe you are, as you say, 'utterly unable', but in fact you're not. You are now, and always have been, at least since the age of 18 or so, acting entirely in accordance with your own free choice. Open your eyes."

13 October 2013 at 11:10  
Blogger David B said...

I see it as as much a general human issue as particularly a feminist one, and this differential valuation of women sticks in my craw.

It is, in my view, an issue in which good moral rules of thumb conflict with each other, and at some point one has to chose whether the swings outweigh the roundabouts or vice versa.

A woman's right to chose whether to carry a foetus is, IMV, a good moral rule of thumb, a foetus not being a human being.

That the stage at which a foetus becomes sufficiently human to require protection is a matter for consideration, and to my mind current abortion law both reflects this, and doesn't get it far wrong.

It is also, IMV, other things being equal, a moral desideratum that people be tolerant of the customs of immigrants to this country, but there are limits to this - the law over-rides people's choice to go fox hunting on horses, and we can't have immigrants being given special privileges, on religious or other grounds.

Personally, I find my abhorrence of such differential valuation of females outweighs the rest.

There do seem to be those who take the right to chose as absolute.

I see any absolutism in morality as being a mistake, though there are cases where the swings outweigh the roundabouts so completely that they can appear absolute.

I regret, personally, that the law seems to have been extended to allow that sort of selective abortion.

David

13 October 2013 at 12:51  
Blogger IanCad said...

David B wrote:

"A woman's right to chose whether to carry a foetus is, IMV, a good moral rule of thumb---"

Where on earth does "Morality" come into play here?

I see "Immorality," ie: Gal wants to get laid and if a pregnancy results then she "Morally" decides to execute her baby. Sorry, that should be "Foetus."

13 October 2013 at 13:07  
Blogger Nick said...

Good analysis Brother Ivo. As you say, we probably don't fully understand the pressure some women are put under by their patriacrchal hierarchy, and that many of those women probably have a perectly normal maternal instinct to keep and nuture the female infant.

IMV, any self-resepecting feminist would be crying "foul" at this lethal discrimination against their gender. There again, maybe like David B, they don't regard anything that isn't walking and talking as human, and therefore can be treated as sluice-fodder without the slightest blip on the conscience.

Multiculturalism has brought death to this nation in many ways, this is just another facet of that assault on our culture and heritage.

13 October 2013 at 13:20  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, Uncle Brian, Brother Ivo certainly could have posed those questions...but it would have been cruel of him to do so. We are all subject to deep cultural programming, brainwashing even, and what to some of us is a matter of free choice, to others is a impossibility, as departure from custom would lead to the injury or destruction of their deepest sense of self.

Ultimately, it becomes a matter of costs and benefits, really. The friend was certainly aware thst he "could" do as he pleases, but if his entire world and identity were to be torn up in the process, leaving him alone in an alternative society he wouldn't have a place in, he knew as an intelligent and rational being, that he really "couldn't".

I'm afraid that this too is the situation many of these women with female fetuses find themselves in and that it's not will, education or better thinking that will make a difference, but either change in their social condition....or, if the quicker and surer approach is preferred...prohibition, prosecution and costly penalties.

13 October 2013 at 13:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Abortions should always be restricted to those which endanger the woman's life or as a result of rape. A healthy foetus aborted by reason of 'choice' should be limited to within the first 13 weeks and should carry the compulsory obligation of sterilisation.

13 October 2013 at 13:32  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

David B: A woman's right to chose whether to carry a foetus is, IMV, a good moral rule of thumb, a foetus not being a human being and I regret, personally, that the law seems to have been extended to allow that sort of selective abortion.

Bit of a conflict, there, in your fusion cuisine of ethics, wouldn't you say, David? As in choice is ok unless it offends your fashionable sense of gender egalitarianism?

13 October 2013 at 13:46  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Very good post Br Ivo. Particularly the point made that by "empowering" woman with sex-selective abortion, they are actually solidifying a foreign, patriarchal hegemony.

It seems to be harder to defend the indefensible - even though Dreadnaught may try to offer radical solutions.

13 October 2013 at 13:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. I regret, personally, that the law seems to have been extended to allow that sort of selective abortion.

Why the regret ?

Who are you to decide that is morally bad ?

That the stage at which a foetus becomes sufficiently human to require protection is a matter for consideration,

Hmmm. Shall we say at three years old. By which time the thing can walk and talk. So mummy has some idea what she is bringing up. It is important to consider whether the appendage fits in with the parents’ lifestyle. Don’t you agree ?

13 October 2013 at 14:02  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

LOL!

13 October 2013 at 14:07  
Blogger richardhj said...

DavidB. If the foetus is not a human being then why can't you choose to kill a female non human being? If it's not human then what's your problem? And when does the foetus become a human being? And why does it not become something else?

13 October 2013 at 14:20  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

David B

Your comment is the closest to the truth as you understand best the new worldview.

Moral judgements are fine provided they do not endanger the new worldview.

Freedom to speech is fine provided it does not threaten the new worldview.

Christianity threatens both and so must be marginalised.

Stalin among others understood this perfectly well.

Murder and injustice are legitimate if used to defend the new worldview.

There is a solution for Christians. It has been used before, but we have become afraid and fear man more than God

David B knows this and so he wins and little girls die

Phil



13 October 2013 at 14:28  
Blogger IanCad said...

BTW; Last night the subject of The Moral Maze on BBC Radio 4 was abortion.

The utter depravity of the promoters of this crime against humanity could not be better illustrated than by the bloodthirsty Dr. Sarah Chan who was one of the witnesses on the program.

Permit me Brother Ivo, to provide a link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03c49xh

13 October 2013 at 14:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This is an compelling case in the abstract but it quickly becomes a rat's nest for the pro-abortionist when the matter moves to the practical. That's why they stay away. For what exactly do you do about it?

You could prosecute for conspiracy but that would only instruct others on how to avoid the law. The crime in question is effectively 'soliciting an abortion for the wrong reason.' So long as an abortion can be obtained for non-specific health reasons, the gender-selective intent can be hidden in disassembling. And what do you do with a pregnant woman convicted under such a statute? Do you compel her to bring the baby to term? Does she therefore forfeit her 'Right to choose' and be forced to become what feminists most hate? It surprises me not at all the feminists say nothing about this subject. It is a necessary an inevitable outcome of our abortion culture. You can't challenge it without challenge the logic of abortion itself.

Feminists will tell you that this subject must be addressed by 'consciousness raising' or some such equine scatology. But they don't know how to do that either. They simply shout empty phrases like 'Overthrow the patriarchy.' The ugly truth is that they are willing to live with this kind of abortion in order to defend the inviolability of abortion itself. For abortion is the Great Liberator of Women from the Tyranny of Biology. Nothing is of greater value to them than that achievement. What is gender imbalance when compared to Freedom from Motherhood?

carl

13 October 2013 at 14:34  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

it is the values of several significant ethnic or religiously-defined cultures which will be driving the decisions of the majority of those seeking sex-selected terminations

A bit late to be complaining about it now, Brother Ivo. Enoch Powell warned of the consequences of Third World immigration but you were too busy shouting him down to listen. On the principle of better late than never, please listen to him now:

‘England is the country of the English. England is the stage on which the drama of English history was played and the setting within which the English became conscious of themselves as a people. When politicians and preachers attempt to frighten and cajole the English into pretending away the distinction between themselves and people of other nations and other origins, they are engaged in undermining the foundation upon which democratic government by consent and peaceable civilised society in this country are supported.’

13 October 2013 at 14:36  
Blogger RetiredPaul said...

The people advocating abortion because of the sex of the baby have obviously not thought this through.

Let's take a simple example. Suppose all non-male foetuses/babies are aborted. Who will the 'valuable' male babies, born at what should have been the same time as the aborted non-males, marry? How will the family name be carried on?

If half the non-males are aborted, then half the males will have no-one to marry, so the 'value' of the few females will rise. It could be financial, leading to a bidding war as families try desperately to continue the blood line. The families with only sons will have to go begging to the families with one or more daughters. Eventually, girls will start to realise that they don't have to put up with being dumped on; a threat to leave could become serious.

Unfortunately, there is another possible outcome, when the rich and powerful simply steal a bride for the favoured son.

13 October 2013 at 14:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. You have a fellow thinking. If it is up to the likes of your good self to arbitrarily decide who gets to live and who dies, then do allow the Inspector to expand on the notion.

He’s recently heard of a chap who needed an operation for bowel cancer. At great cost to the public purse you know, and the subject, well, let’s just say he was getting on in years and had no dependants. He survived, but is now somewhat of a burden, financially that is, on everybody else. A bit like a disabled child in many ways. And there is always the chance the cancer will return to finish him off.

Now, ask yourself, shouldn’t termination at the onset on the disease have been a consideration ? To save all the inconvenience he caused. And then there is the philosophical question as to whether during his illness he was, well, ‘less than human’, which is an interesting phrase beloved of abortionists...

13 October 2013 at 14:46  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

If you want to look at the law of unintended consequences arising from this, just look at China

http://vitaminw.co/news/chinas-gender-gap-blame-housing-cost-more

http://shanghaiist.com/2010/08/17/is_chinas_lack_of_women_making_its.php

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/02/china-village-of-bachelors

Let's take it as read that abortion of a healthy baby on the ground of gender is reprehensible in the extreme anyway but that this opinion is getting us nowhere. What argument will actually force our powers-that-be to look at the issue properly?

I could go on ad nauseam about the appalling problem of effectively having "abortion on demand" in the UK anyway, but that wasn't the topic of the original post.

13 October 2013 at 14:57  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

You have me thinking too, Inspector. I'm being compelled to take the family to a monstrous, crowded discount mall in the wilds of tacky suburbia for...ugh...clothes shopping. This will interfere with my plan to loaf about on this rainy day, strumming away on my guitar and posting on Cranmer's at my pleasure. With my autonomy, dignity and quality of life thus assailed, my mind wanders sinfully toward thoughts of medically assisted suicide, or at least powerful psychedelics. Who, o, who will dare to stand and assert in this brave New Age that my suffering is minor, my reasons petty and my solutions immoral?

13 October 2013 at 15:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Sister Tiberia

Aborting a child on grounds of gender is exactly as reprehensible as aborting a child on grounds of career focus or a desire to avoid the mental health trauma of stretch marks. You can't separate these issues. There isn't any way to address this problem in law without dramatically restricting access to abortion. That is why it is a law that won't be prosecuted. The state can declare its opposition without ever having to act on its declaration - lest it muck up the absolute right of a woman to reject the obligation of motherhood.

carl

13 October 2013 at 15:13  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Sister T

"What argument will actually force our powers-that-be to look at the issue properly?"

Only fear of the ballot box I think.

13 October 2013 at 15:13  
Blogger Nick said...

Avi

You have my sympathies. Have you not thought of simply pretending to be mentally ill, or just broke?

13 October 2013 at 15:18  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Won't help, Nick, wife's already convinced I'm mentally ill, but at least sufficiently functional to comply with directives, and she is in charge of all accounts and monies on account of, you guessed it, my lack of mental fitness.

13 October 2013 at 15:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

Or perhaps you could declare 'My afternoon! My choice! Overthrow the Matriarchy!' [This is where you would thrust your fist into the air as a symbol of your empowerment.]

Yes, that would work.

carl

13 October 2013 at 15:27  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, the fact that you still have fingers to write this tells me you haven't tried to to thrust your fist in the air with your wife around.

13 October 2013 at 15:31  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

Abortion is simply murder of another human being whose life has been entrusted to the mother's care.
The woman's 'right to choose' is the right not to be prosecuted for murder.

If she has been given a baby (and whatever the modern attitude, women get pregnant when they happen to get pregnant and not when they want to get pregnant) then she has been given a life which it is agreed she can choose to nurture or to terminate.

But if she has a right to abort a baby because she has been raped (very rare but always trotted out as justification) or it is judged likely to cause her greater harm to give birth than not to, (affecting her physical or 'mental health') then it is illogical to say that she shouldn't be able to do away with her baby it if it is inconvenient to her, or could distress her to have a girl.

That is why the DPP's interpretation of the law is quite right and it's the law that is wrong.

And yet David Steel still struts around, five decades later, impenitent, complaining that his law was never meant to allow female infanticide.
He must be stupid, as well as having no moral compass.

And meanwhile, our civilisation kills its own babies and eats up its future.

13 October 2013 at 15:42  
Blogger Len said...

Any society that aborts helpless infants will eventually turn its attention to the aged,and those of 'no useful input to society'.
Of course' Evolutionary thinking' has reduced God`s Creation to a 'mass of cells' which can be 'disposed of' without involving ones conscience and this process of 'disposal' has become quite a lucrative industry for some.
It is a mark of a Society how it treats its weak and vulnerable citizens and it can now be apparent to the discerning that society can be manipulated into believing almost anything by those who are prepared to embark on the course of shaping society to meet their own ends.
The Media shapes our views and opinions ..and it is this constant (in many cases unconscious ) pressure which molds us to whatever those behind the Media wants us to believe.
Without a' yardstick' to measure morality we all become victims of the 'puppetmasters' in the Media.

'Eugenics' is the direct result of Darwinian philosophies and has set us on a course which we seen now ..the de- valueing of Human Life.. the destruction of moral codes and the disintegration of society.

13 October 2013 at 15:51  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

“There may be a handful of radical feminists who would reject a male child, but it is the values of several significant ethnic or religiously-defined cultures which will be driving the decisions of the majority of those seeking sex-selected terminations, and within those cultures, the girl child is regarded as of distinctly lesser value.”

NOT in our culture she isn't and that's what the DPP and our government should hammer home to all these ethnics living here now. Isn't that what equality is all about??????
If they live here they abide by our rules and our laws. Why should there be one law and set of values for us and another for Asians and any other lot of differing ethnics that settle here.

I notice most feminists here are white and probably do not know enough of the deeper aspects of these alien cultures the government have let in to be motivated enough or to care. Also human nature plays a huge part in that every culture and race tend to stick to their own.

We are enveloping ourselves ever deeper into a culture war and only our government can get us out by standing firm and supporting our own values.

“Their say so is needed, but the process will have started with the husbands, fathers and other male members of the community who set these standards.”

These standards aren't British standards and should not encouraged. Our governments have blithely let in all this alien culture not giving a second thought to the wider ramifications and difficulties of clashing values.

The feminists need to be inspired to see the new cause and to fight for an alien group of women who probably don't want to integrate at all.


13 October 2013 at 16:37  
Blogger Albert said...

I think this whole discussion is probably based on misunderstanding. Certainly, it is good to expose the contradictions and hypocrisy in the abortionists' position. However, to think that that position rests on some kind of wider claim to justice, like feminism is probably a mistake.

It never was about feminism. It was always about an individual trying to threw off anything that might limit personal autonomy, be that law, culture or even biology. Nietzsche is the father of modernity, not Marx.

This means that this matter cannot be determined by intellectual debate. The pro-abortion position was never about reason, it was only ever about the individual's will. This scandal of sex-selective abortions has weakened their position rhetorically, but it has not weakened them intellectually, as it was never an intellectual position.

This is evident, not only from the fact that they will not speak against the fundamental sexism involved in killing unborn females, but also in the fact that they will not protest the tragic and sexist forcing of women to have abortions on grounds of gender. Care and compassion for others is not the issue. Their own individual will is all that counts here.

13 October 2013 at 17:38  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Belsay Bugle

And yet David Steel still struts around, five decades later, impenitent, complaining that his law was never meant to allow female infanticide. He must be stupid, as well as having no moral compass.

I’d like to repeat here something I posted a couple of days ago on another thread dealing with the same subject. It’s a short excerpt from Noel Annan’s book, Our Age,published in 1991:

[T]he party of reform thought society tough enough not to be endangered by abortion. To them the prevention of unwanted children strengthened rather than weakened the family. They favoured, as their opponents did not, equality between the sexes and tolerated sexual deviancy. They considered that individuals have the right to control fertility. The reformers were, however, outflanked by the small vocal group of feminist-marxists who proclaimed that sexual unhappiness had its origins in the capitalist system: [. . .] Above all, a woman’s body was her own to do with as she saw fit and no one should try to diminish this right.

David Steel was clearly one of what Noel Annan calls “the reformers”, while today’s “pro-choicers” are the daughters and granddaughters of Annan’s “feminist-marxists”. Steel and his fellow-reformers allowed themselves to be outflanked. He may have been well-intentioned, but he doesn’t seem to have been very clever. Either that, or he is being disingenuous: he knew all along what the concessions were that he was making.

13 October 2013 at 18:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Ivo. ...and to the gay or transgendered too, in the unlikely event of a genetic component being identified...

Don’t be so dismissive of that happening or similar, that man. Homosexuality is no less the result of cause and effect than anything else. But what a fight that would be. The massed ranks of organised militant homosexuals against wimmins right advocates. One can imagine the droplets of blood and bits of skin and hair splattering him as he runs for cover. It certainly won't be a pretty sight...



13 October 2013 at 18:51  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

Uncle Brian

It was Roy Jenkins and David Steel et al (liberals and social democrats with and without initial capitals) who were the useful idiots (sorry to use such an over-used phrase), the acceptable faces of what has become the abortion industry.

But I reserve my ire for David Steel because he was a wolf in sheep's clothing, pretending (and succeeding) to be reasonable and measured and moderate. It was his type who got the whole thing past the electorate and through the Commons (a much more voluble and morally-based Commons than the party hacks, box-tickers and lobby fodder nowadays).

If the electorate could have seen the real people behind it, and their intentions, (feminist-marxists, as Annan trenchantly calls them) it would have been much harder for them.

So either Steel is a fool or more sinister than he appears. It doesn't much matter in practice, to the millions of children that have been murdered as a result of what he ushered in.

But if he is a fool one might have expected a little public penitence, and some effort to make amends now he can see what he has done. I don't see much evidence of this, and so I am driven to conclude that he must be more sinister than he appears. It baffles me that as he now appears (rather feebly) to be trying to distance himself (ever so slightly) from the terrible effects of it all he still has the gall to strut and play the wise, elder statesman pontificating about anything and everything.

The catastrophic betrayal of his duty to the children of our nation makes John Profumo's behaviour in the Commons look like stealing a packet of sweets in comparison. Yet Profumo spent the rest of his life in sackcloth and ashes.

13 October 2013 at 18:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Belsay: "It was Roy Jenkins and David Steel et al (liberals and social democrats with and without initial capitals) who were the useful idiots (sorry to use such an over-used phrase), the acceptable faces of what has become the abortion industry."

Do you really think they weren't operating from their own strongly held reformist views? It's curious that all the major reform laws that Jenkins steered through remain in the place. Even Margaret Thatcher's governments didn't repeal them. It's hard to imagine homosexuality or abortion could be criminalised again short of a massive shift in public opinion.

"It was his type who got the whole thing past the electorate and through the Commons (a much more voluble and morally-based Commons than the party hacks, box-tickers and lobby fodder nowadays)."

The Labour Party and Labour voters were a much more authoritarian party back then, as far as morality and law&order issues were concerned. Yet the law came from a Private Members Bill through a free vote which was given a time extension to finally reach a decision on the issue.

13 October 2013 at 19:55  
Blogger David B said...

@ Avi who said

"Bit of a conflict, there, in your fusion cuisine of ethics, wouldn't you say, David? As in choice is ok unless it offends your fashionable sense of gender egalitarianism?"

Yes of course there is a conflict, as I said in the post.

But as I also said, I am not a moral absolutist, and the best moral moral decisions generally involve a judgement between swings and roundabouts, IMV.

Inspector - not everyone regards a foetus being as identical to a living human being. Also not everyone views women and people from foreign countries as inherently inferior, a rather nasty view which frequently arises in your posts. In fact, I seem to remember some rather incendiary posts of yours regarding killing people in foreign lands, no? Posts which seem to me out of keeping with a consistent pro-life Position?

Phil, where does the freedom of speech thing come into it?

Some lines need to be drawn on freedom of speech - inciting terrorist attacks, perhaps, and the old saw of crying 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre, but when have ever suggested that those against abortion on most or even any grounds should not be free to argue their case?

And someone above, I forget who, implied that all people wanting an abortion are irresponsible, pr concerned with lines, which rather trivialises those preganant as a result of rape, or those who find the foetus would have a medical condition that would result in a still birth or a short life of agony. Of course not all abortions are either those with the strongest arguments for them being justifiable, but nor are all abortions those with the weakest reasons.

David



13 October 2013 at 20:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


David B. Also not everyone views women and people from foreign countries as inherently inferior, a rather nasty view which frequently arises in your posts.

Well, one saves much of his scorn for the people of this country, including you, as it happens. That’s what comes from seeing Judeo-Christianity as the only way, and not just one of them. Is the Inspector proud of his stance ? You bet your hat he is...

One thinks you’ll find the only killing of people this man approves of, home or abroad, is for those who thoroughly and richly deserve that fate. Boko Haram and Cony for example, as well as abortionists, but if you do have a secular argument why these precious lot be spared, do air it...


13 October 2013 at 20:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector:"And there is always the chance the cancer will return to finish him off."

I have to say that you're a despicable turd for writing that, and I ought not to be the only one who has commented about it.

13 October 2013 at 20:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0, shove it son. Where the sun doesn’t shine. You know how to get there...

13 October 2013 at 20:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

...and if you secular blighters think you’re safe from being culled when you’re old and sick, then watch out for the next generation of secularists, who may well disagree and consider you the burden the unwanted foetus is...

13 October 2013 at 21:00  
Blogger bluedog said...

Give us a break, DanJO @ 20.48, you and only you regularly resort to calling other communicants 'berk' (Ars Hendrik) and 'turd' (OIG).

All together now, what name do we call DanJO? What will it achieve if we think of something extra-specially unpleasant?

13 October 2013 at 21:05  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

DanJO,

They might have been acting from 'their own strongly held reformist views', but unless they intended this wholesale slaughter of the innocents, they were wrong.

Genie out of bottle, thin end of the wedge, etc.

I accept no social change has been reversed by subsequent parliaments for hundreds of years. But that doesn't make the changes right; we have been in retreat from morally-based rule for a long time

13 October 2013 at 21:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog:"All together now, what name do we call DanJO? What will it achieve if we think of something extra-specially unpleasant?"

Call me what you like. The bowel cancer thing could be your inspiration too given that I watched my mother die of it. Perhaps you could pray to your Jesus for advice and tips in case I have a potentially terminal illness that you could rub my face in to score points, like the Inspector back thereN

13 October 2013 at 21:23  
Blogger Nick said...

Danj0

I think you missed the point. The Inspector was simply applying the pro-abortion "logic" to the other end of life to show what ghastly state of affairs would ensue.

13 October 2013 at 21:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Belsay:"They might have been acting from 'their own strongly held reformist views', but unless they intended this wholesale slaughter of the innocents, they were wrong."

David Steel has said he never intended for the law to be used for abortion on demand.

13 October 2013 at 21:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A few decades from now...

Right, come to order. The Health Commission is in session. First case please

A man who needs surgery and chemo, and nursing afterwards

Circumstances ?

A gay single man, late sixties

Hmmm. A considerable investment in resources. Resources that are scarce. Which of course is why we exist, to make sure that any expense is warranted. Gay you say, will that be a problem ?

Well, we have the LGBT Rights Ministry to consider. But due to his age, they are unlikely to object too much. They are much more for the younger age spectrum

Agreed then. Make the fellow comfortable as much as you can. If he doesn’t push off in reasonable time, help him on his way. There are others who need his bed...


13 October 2013 at 21:32  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

David B: Yes of course there is a conflict, as I said in the post....But as I also said, I am not a moral absolutist, and the best moral moral decisions generally involve a judgement between swings and roundabouts, IMV.

So you did indeed, David. Hmm, alright then, if the newfangled ways and mores, or swings and roundabouts, fail us on a little thing like to vacuum or not to vacuum a clump of cells which dares to acquire a gender, and looking up the Sky Fairy's opinion would be so yesterday, perhaps a time share arrangement with the new CRAY array at NASA, a thoughtful explanation of your quandary and two seconds later, a perfect projection/solution. Beware of GIGO,* though.

*In American programmer jargon, "garbage-in, garbage out."

13 October 2013 at 21:33  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Inspector

Killing the sick and old is just as logical as killing the unborn.

More logical if you ask me.

So I join with you in the "despicable turd" list for following their logic to the inevitable conclusion?

What is a despicable turd anyway? Presumably, it is someone in atheist land that does not agree with you and you mark out to deal with when you are strong enough. We are the "sick" of the new world order and when the time is right the "committee of public safety" will be ready to discuss our case.

Phil

13 October 2013 at 21:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil:"So I join with you in the "despicable turd" list for following their logic to the inevitable conclusion?"

That's not why I called him that. It was his using someone's recent illness to score points.

13 October 2013 at 21:40  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DAvid B

"those preganant as a result of rape, or those who find the foetus would have a medical condition that would result in a still birth or a short life of agony"

As a compromise, I would agree to restrict abortion only for these cases.

99% of babies would then live.

Phil

13 October 2013 at 21:41  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Danjo: David Steel has said he never intended for the law to be used for abortion on demand.

Hahahaha! And you, with your legendary on-the-ball perception, sucked that one right up!

13 October 2013 at 21:46  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

O, dammit, you were being sarcastic again, weren't you, Danjo. Say it was so...

13 October 2013 at 21:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Poor Avi, not coping well with that thing on the other thread by the look of it. Hey, I've got a link for you about that Warwick lecturer when a suitable thread for it comes up. ;)

13 October 2013 at 21:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I reread the original thread about it earlier. Damn, I was good there.

13 October 2013 at 21:53  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Yes, scarred for life I am, thanks to you, Danjo, but preferable to those ovens. And hark, what's this, it's all about you again! Odd coincidence.

13 October 2013 at 21:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I note that it was you who engaged with me here, not the other way around. Unfinished business for you? ;)

13 October 2013 at 22:02  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hmm, no actually, just a fresh round of funning, Danjo. I lack the attention span and perseverance for lengthy cat-fights. It's why you always win.

13 October 2013 at 22:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perhaps it's time for you to talk randomly and at length about herring and whisky again. That'd be nice.

13 October 2013 at 22:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

But anyway. I think Roy Jenkins was completely sincere thinking that he was civilising society with his reforms. The gap between intention and reality does involve the feminist right to choose for women over tgeir bodies, I think, but I reckon there's also something about the lack of self-restraint in terms of libertarianism about it too.

13 October 2013 at 22:25  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ouch! Nothing sacred for you, then. You drew blood, Danjo. Do something about those nails, will ya?

13 October 2013 at 22:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Phil. “Turds for life” has something going for it you know. Ich bein ein turd !

As you say, we are the new ‘sick’ to be re-educated when the ‘liberals’ have it completely, and can deal with dissent.

13 October 2013 at 22:43  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

You know how it goes, Inspector, first they came for the turds....

Anyhow, recently a woman in Holland or Denmark was granted right to her dignity and euthanised on grounds of depression. She was unhappy with the results of her sex change operation. A young woman, rejected by her parents for her strangness, rejected by the LGBT beautiful people for her plain looks and ugly scars. Embraced by the "healers" and given the hemlock for her "dignity".This is what we have come to.

13 October 2013 at 23:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Yes Avi. The Inspector followed the case. Transexualism is usually the extreme form of homosexuality. But not in this case. It was a repulsed daughter’s pathetic attempt at being the boy her mother wanted. Very sad, and very psychiatric.

But ‘aborted’ she was...

13 October 2013 at 23:23  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

A sad reminder, Inspector, that the proverbial "slippery slope" is not just a rhetorical fallacy. A mentally ill woman is granted her wish, her clinical depression and death wish validated by our betters, the experts. No doubt there was a room-full of PhDs, a professional Ethics Committee involved. Say hello to the new priesthood. Then, as case numbers multiply and budgets are pinched, hey, why not economize and toss the insane into the ovens without all that undignified tomfoolery of expensive operations and busy review boards? But we mustn't mention the ovens...another absurd, alarmist fallacy.

13 October 2013 at 23:39  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thank you for some very sensible points, Marie @ 16:37. I believe our society made some progress for a while. But...

Post Script: Nevertheless, Br. Ivo British feminists may talk a good fight - but when it comes down to it, they fight like girls. Well, whatever do you expect? Surely you’ll remember the nursery rhyme about the little “girl, who had a little curl, right in the middle of her for’ead/When she was good, she was very, very good/When she was bad she was horrid.”

That kind don’t change their nature when they mature physically, gain technology, or become otherwise ‘empowered’; they just get nastier. That’s why we hear about the deadlier ‘female of the species.’ The nature of the Beast can afflict all genders, I do believe!

The Bard showed it exceptionally well in the Scottish Play, through the protagonist and his er ... perhaps we should stay modern and dub it “Baroness.” Remember the bit about her attitude to unwanted children? The evil lad himself finally had a few memorable words to add (V.v.17-28).

Oh, and as for “yesterday’s” attitudes - why not recall the proto-feminists? You know, those other Indo-Europeans, The Amazons! Not every righteous, caring, now-person wants to believe that anything so “unacceptable” existed; but many people - throughout the millennia - have credited the possibility. Strabo described one legend about their attitude to procreation, and their refusal to accept boy children.** Anybody know if Freud knew the story? It’s right in his bailiwick, after all.

And it could happen whenever Feminists decide they’re masculine-type warriors. Or even just because they’ve taken over management in every kind of post-modern institution.

-------------------------------
**If Your Grace will permit, the link is to Perseus at Tufts.edu: Strabo’s Geography .

14 October 2013 at 01:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Cato's Third Axiom of Debate.

The vehemence with which victory is declared is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the victory achieved.

carl

14 October 2013 at 03:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Well, OK. I might have added that part about Cato.

Carthago delenda est.

carl

14 October 2013 at 03:44  
Blogger richardhj said...

Despite the overwhelming desire to prove that the world is overpopulated, there are nevertheless regular reports published which show that there are far too few young people to keep the economy going to support the old and sick.

Anyone who thinks that euthanasia for the old and sick is not next is very, very deluded. And yes, Inspector, you and I, and most posters on here, will definitely be on the "sick" list when the "liberals" take over completely.

14 October 2013 at 08:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As ever, why would young people accept euthanasia of old people when they will clearly become old themselves at some point. This is the UK, not Logan's Run. I suppose it's a natural thing for religionists of certain flavours to have an apocalyptic view of the future but that doesn't mean the rest of us are deluded for not screaming and running around with our hands in the air as a result.

14 October 2013 at 17:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Piffle !

What a lame statement on the subject.

Why should young women accept abortion when they could be pushed into it, or a young father deprived of his child, or potential grandparents of grand children, you might ask...

It damn well happened, didn’t it !

14 October 2013 at 19:05  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Danjo: As ever, why would young people accept euthanasia of old people when they will clearly become old themselves at some point.

Because young people are essentially stupid and arrogant when it comes to ageing. They can't conceive of getting old. It's too far ahead in the future. They think they'll have no trouble sacrificing themselves in the future, because old is uncool and undignified anyway. They'll be too rich to be affected. It wont't happen to them, because science will save them.

14 October 2013 at 22:42  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

The way the pro-euthanasia people deal with this is to deny that providing euthanasia to individuals harms others or society or the value of respect for life. But there is lots of evidence in the Netherlands and Belgium to show they are wrong. There we can see what is called the logical slippery slope — once euthanasia is introduced the situations where it can be used expand exponentially, for instance, euthanasia for mental illness without physical illness is now allowed in both countries.

--Prof. Somerville, founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal.
..............

Belgium recorded a record number of 1,432 cases of euthanasia in 2012, up 25 per cent from the previous year. It is currently deciding whether to extend the legislation to children.


Cf. -National Post, Canada

14 October 2013 at 23:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Yet the courts even refuse to sanction assisted suicide here in the UK when presented with cases where most people for all the right and noble reasons would want an exception made. That's the situation even though we have in practice abortion on demand in the second trimester of pregnancy. What is being presented up there is not assisted suicide but vulnerable old people being 'put down' because it is too expensive for the State to care for them. That's not an inevitable future at all, especially through that risible thing about the young simply being stupid, and the equivocation of 'liberal' is dubious too.

15 October 2013 at 06:42  
Blogger William Lewis said...

State sanctioned ending of a life at its beginning for the supposed benefit of its mother versus state sanctioned ending of a life near its apparent end for the supposed benefit of relatives and/or the state? What's the difference? In fact I suspect that a utilitarian would have a harder job justifying the former over the latter, particularly were he to assert that there are right and noble reasons for the state to assist suicide.

15 October 2013 at 08:14  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Stupid is as stupid does. A majority of high school and university students polled in Canada support euthanasia, mainly on the grounds of insipid interpretations of "individual liberty" and "dying with dignity." Ask the young numb-nuts what those mean and you'll get furrowed brows and gaping mouths...making them prime candidates for euthanasia, under some criteria, come to think of it.

In all cases so far, pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany, Holland and Belgium, euthanasia began with "all the right and noble reasons" and rapidly expanded the criteria, devolving into involuntary active euthanasia. Do look up the latest developments in Holland and Belgium, Danjo. It took little more than a decade to get where they are...a step or two from Hitler's T-4 program. Waiting in the wings now are organizations and individuals who are lobbying for similar society-wide measures on economic and environmental grounds. Your promise that this genie will, this time and unlike other genies, stay in the bottle is worthless.

Inevitable, maybe not, as resistance is growing to this obscene sham...and if we apply the loose criteria and kindly euthanise the killer doctors on the grounds of incurable sociopathy and psychopathology. Or, if we raise the voting age to 40.

15 October 2013 at 08:25  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Avi Barzel (08:25)—An article on the Dutch experience of euthanasia was published in the Psychiatric Times in 2004. To avoid having to register to read it online, Google ‘herbert hendin the case against physician assisted suicide’ and the link will take you straight to the page. Hendin writes:

I was one of a few foreign researchers who had the opportunity to extensively study the situation in the Netherlands, discuss specific cases with leading Dutch practitioners and interview Dutch government-sponsored euthanasia researchers about their work. We all independently concluded that guidelines established by the Dutch for the practice of assisted suicide and euthanasia were consistently violated and could not be enforced. In the guidelines, a competent patient who has [untreatable] suffering makes a voluntary request to a physician. The physician, before going forward, must consult with another physician and must report the case to the authorities.

Concern over charges of abuse led the Dutch government to undertake studies of the practice in 1990, 1995 and in 2001 in which physicians’ anonymity was protected and they were given immunity for anything they revealed. Violations of the guidelines then became evident. Half of Dutch doctors feel free to suggest euthanasia to their patients, which compromises the voluntariness of the process. Fifty percent of cases were not reported, which made regulation impossible. The most alarming concern has been the documentation of several thousand cases a year in which patients who have not given their consent have their lives ended by physicians. A quarter of physicians stated that they ‘terminated the lives of patients without an explicit request’ from the patient. Another third of the physicians could conceive of doing so.

15 October 2013 at 11:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "What's the difference?"

You're equivocating over the meaning of "a life" there. Of course, we already terminate the 'lives' of people who we no longer consider people i.e. those of life support who we think are brain dead, meaning the person is not there any longer. Most people accept that and most people, to anticipate a typical retort, won't see that as a slippery slope to the human/sub-human thinking. The issue above in the thread is, as I have already said, that 'putting down' the elderly because there will be too many for a working population to support would require a 'turkeys voting for Christmas' mentality for the rest of us. None of us will be a pre-person foetus again.

"In fact I suspect that a utilitarian would have a harder job [...]"

If you find one of those then you could ask him or her, I suppose.

15 October 2013 at 13:00  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Danj0

You appear to be equivocating the meaning of "terminating" a life there. We may well advocate removing treatment and letting nature take its course in some instances, but that is not the same as applying a lethal injection or even giving someone the means by which they may administer a lethal dose. I don't believe that anyone applies the slippery slope argument from the basis that sometimes the state allows life support machines to be turned off.

15 October 2013 at 16:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Most people accept that and most people, to anticipate a typical retort, won't see that as a slippery slope to the [N azi] human/sub-human thinking."

I'm pretty sure I typed that word in the square brackets so there may be some sort of automatic removal thingy going on. Ironic, really, because it was one of the few instances of a sensible use rather than (say) to prevent criticism of the State of Israel, or comments about Jewish religious practice, or to smear by association. Oh well.

15 October 2013 at 17:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "We may well advocate removing treatment and letting nature take its course in some instances [...]"

If we switched off life support from someone who is not brain dead then I rather think that's much the same as rapidly hastening someone on their way with a lethal injection.

"I don't believe that anyone applies the slippery slope argument from the basis that sometimes the state allows life support machines to be turned off."

We allow the thing to be turned off because the body is essentially person-less. Similarly with a foetus at a certain stage which has never has a person-ality. For sure, we assume the former will never gain their personhood back whereas the foetus will get to the point where it has one, albeit a pro-personality in the normal course of events. Yet both are still 'alive' in the sense you're using. Not so the elderly or sick person who is undoubtedly a person in the normal way we all recognise.

There also appears to be some slippage going on regarding the meaning of euthanasia. Killing the elderly against their will to save money is hardly the same as assisting someone's suicide or indeed killing someone out of benevolence i.e. a mercy killing, when the person is unable to decide for themselves.

15 October 2013 at 17:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The missing word comment, by the way, was typed on a smart phone using the mobile version of the blogger interface.

15 October 2013 at 17:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“Gran, can you hear me. Just to say I’m taking you to the Euth clinic tomorrow. Thanks for remembering your grand daughter and me in your will. It means so much to us. We can stop renting now and put a sizeable amount down on a house. It’s what we’ve always wanted; we can start to live our lives. You’ve lived yours and now it’s our turn. And we’ll never forget you for what you’ve done, you know.”



15 October 2013 at 21:24  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Thanks, JRB, you might find euthanasia.com to be a goldmine. Couple of hundred articles, anti-euthanasia to be sure, especially on Holland and Belgium, where things have gotten much worse, with physicians deciding on their own, children not requiring parental consent to be snuffed and high number of unreported or mis-reported "treatments."


Dajo: ".....Ironic, really, because it was one of the few instances of a sensible use rather than (say) to prevent criticism of the State of Israel, or comments about Jewish religious practice, or to smear by association. Oh well."

Gasp! Well, I never! I know you have to have your last hiss, but cut it out, it's getting a bit embarrassing, you silly knob, you.

16 October 2013 at 02:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's not all about you, you know.

16 October 2013 at 05:45  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

That's my line, you can't count that as your parting shot.

16 October 2013 at 06:27  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older