guardian royal foetus
Ethics & Morality

A baby? A child? Duchess of Cambridge pregnant with royal foetus

As congratulates pour in to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the announcement that they are expecting their third child, once again we are awash with media stories about a Royal baby. Even the Guardian talks of the Duchess being “pregnant with third child.”

Not, it isn’t a royal foetus, but a royal child. “The duchess is understood to be less than 12 weeks pregnant”, the Guardian informs us, and yet they still refer to the contents of her womb as a child. Moreover, that child’s birthright and destiny are mapped out: “The baby will be fifth in line to the throne…”; a certain future for the present child.

The Guardian is curiously inconsistent on this. When the Duke and Duchess announced their first pregnancy in 2012, the headline was that of the couple “expecting their first child“, despite the Duchess being in the “very early stages” of pregnancy. We were told that the couple “are to be parents”, and that this “will be the Queen’s third great-grandchild”, and “a first grandchild for Prince Charles”.

The child’s birthright was acknowledged: he or she was “destined to wear the crown one day”; he or she “will become third in line to the throne”, which the then Prime Minister David Cameron described it as “absolutely wonderful news”; and the then Leader of the Opposition Ed Miliband tweeted: “Fantastic news for Kate, William and the country. A royal baby is something the whole nation will celebrate.”

But expecting a child is not the same as being pregnant with a child: many pro-choice believers take the view that childhood begins at birth; and a great many more accord with current abortion law, namely that at 24 weeks something happens. They’re not quite sure what, but somehow the foetus is granted a greater right to life because Parliament has determined that it is more recognisably human (unless, of course, there is evidence that the baby will be born disabled, in which case it is an expendable foetus right up to birth).

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, tweeted: “Wonderful news – delighted and praying for The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their family.”

Which one belligerent follower tersely challenged: “SerIous question, Archbishop – is this baby more important to God than other babies?”

A babyish, foolish brick to hurl at the Archbishop, who simply doesn’t have the time to tweet his congratulations to every couple in the world who announce that they are expecting a baby (though he would doubtless be delighted for them all). But this is certainly a pointed question which might be directed at the Guardian (and, indeed, to all media and pro-choice organisations and individuals who have uttered words to the effect of the Guardian headline). Why is “Kate pregnant with baby number 3” if it is not actually a baby in her womb? Why is it a “third child” if it is not actually yet a child?

And speculation abounds about the name: Alice? Victoria? Arthur?

Baby? Child? Birthright? Destiny? Another great-grandchild for the Queen? Even the Twitter hashtags are #RoyalBaby and #RoyalBaby3. What about #RoyalFoetus (or #RoyalFetus for our American cousins, who love this sort of thing). Or does a foetus in the womb magically become a baby only when it is wanted? Is it made in the image of God only when the woman wants to be a mother?

Surely the Guardian and all such ‘pro-choice’ newspapers, journals, organisations and individuals should be talking about a bunch of pluripotent stem cells, an embryo or a foetus? The Duchess is still in her first trimester, and perfectly entitled to abort the contents of her womb should she so wish, so this is absolutely not yet a baby, and certainly nothing with any kind of destiny. At this stage, surely, it is a non-person, just like the other 202,469 unwanted non-persons who last year were evacuated from wombs in England, Scotland and Wales.

Or is a Royal Foetus endowed with full humanity at the point of conception?

  • Indeed. Hypocrisy. Abounds.

  • Maalaistollo

    Surely, to get with the agenda, we need a humanity-neutral term. One already exists: ‘Products of conception.’

    • writhledshrimp

      Gender neutral too, Halfords should make a card.
      Congratulations on your new product of conception.

      • John

        Halfords? You’ll find the cards by the display of Haynes manuals, just past the bicycle accessory aisle!

      • James Bolivar DiGriz

        Halfords?

        • writhledshrimp

          Oops Hallmark –

  • Sarky

    The point is she has the choice. Her child will be born into a life of privilege,
    Many women who fall pregnant can’t even feed themselves and lead chaotic lives that no child should be brought into.

    • Anton

      So why not euthanise the mothers too then?

      • Sarky

        Answer me honestly.
        Would it have been better for baby p and the little girl victoria to not have been born, or to have lived through the utter horror they did in their tragically short lives?

        • That’s not how morality works. You don’t improve people’s lives by killing them.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Oh I don’t know . . . the killer(s) might, inadvertently, release the victim to that ‘Better Place’!

        • James60498 .

          But whose fault was that? It wasn’t their fault, it was their mothers’ fault.

          You didn’t answer his question. Why not euthanise the mothers? They are the ones responsible for the horror.

          • Little Black Censored

            At least, one might think, in time, pro-abortionists will die out, if they practise what they preach.

        • CliveM

          As a question this doesn’t make any sense. They were born, they weren’t aborted.

          The only way the question makes sense is if you knew what an unborn child’s future is going to be.

          So if you had known what the future would be for these unborn children, would you abort it , or remove it from its parents?

          • Sarky

            Remove it from its parents obviously. I dont agree with wholesale abortion, but sometimes i look at these poor kids and think it would have been better if they hadn’t been born.

          • CliveM

            Actually I think it would have been better if their abusers hadn’t been born!

          • Sarky

            Yep.

          • carl jacobs

            “Look here. Your parents are just incompetent and/or evil so we’ll have to kill you for your own good. Understand?”

            This argument (and, yes, that is the argument you are making) is incoherent. Abortion doesn’t serve to benefit the child. It benefits adults.

          • Sarky

            Abortion doesnt benefit the child?

            It does if the short life lived would be one of tortue and abuse.

            Or is that ok with you as long as the child is born?

          • CliveM

            You keep on bringing this up. Please demonstrate how abortion helps abused children.

          • Sarky

            Because how many wish they’d never been born!

          • CliveM

            You appear to be implying that abortion is justified because children are abused. Maybe inadvertently. But you could only do that if you can evidence how and also who. Can you?

      • carl jacobs

        Silly Anton.

        So why not euthanise the mothers too then?

        Because the equivalence partition wouldn’t be right. The mother is too much like everyone else. So if she was euthanized then everyone could be subjected to involuntary euthanasia because of her case. But people can’t become unborn ever again.

      • betteroffoutofit

        Sounds like a plan. After all, how many of their lives are, or will be, worth living?

        And what about the fathers, in all this? What have they done to both mother and child? It fascinates me they seldom figure in these arguments – though men do the greater part of the arguing . . .

    • Little Black Censored

      Yes, ask the child (child) and it would say it would rather be dead.

      • James60498 .

        Excellent idea. Of course though the child may not be able to speak or reason so then Sarky could make the decision.

        Perhaps he could carry it out too.

        Of course in these cases the women didn’t choose an abortion, so a choice to abort didn’t help.

        Perhaps then we ought to have forced abortion and sterilisation for every woman in the lower social classes who it might be thought could abuse their children. Of course you would have to assume every possible case.

        • Or abortion for every child if a war seems imminent or a drought or a plague or a …

    • carl jacobs

      You realize that your argument could be used to justify drowning children after birth as well. It doesn’t depend upon any intrinsic characteristic of the child. It depends upon expectations about the child’s future life. Applying that expectation only before birth is wholly arbitrary.

      • John

        Atheist philosopher Peter Singer makes this exact point arguing seriously for the right to kill new born babies if the parents don’t like the cut of their offspring’s jib. Chilling…

        • Royinsouthwest

          If the same argument was applied to philosophers whose opinions we do not like then I think the police would come and make a few arrests.

        • Cressida de Nova

          He also thinks it is OK to have a sexual relationship with your pet dog providing the sex is consensual.

          • bluedog

            Whose your puppy?

          • Cressida de Nova

            I don’t have a dog and from this point on I especially don’t like blue ones.

          • bluedog

            One’s colourist will be instructed accordingly. How would ‘Saluki Bronze’ appeal? Once a popular choice on the Ford Capri.

        • Brian

          Of course. The Master Race cannot tolerate ‘unlebenswertes Leben’.
          Yet strangely these modern eugenicists cannot see the source of their human-hating ideas.

        • bluedog

          It’s remarkable that Singer and his supporters are apparently unable to recognise their endorsement of ‘post-natal abortion’ leads seamlessly to a final solution of the aged care problem. Or perhaps they do.

  • David

    Your Grace does well to use this happy announcement to challenge those who pretend that aborting a not yet born baby human is, by some sort of twisted, perverse logic, a “Human Right”.
    Like all the rest of these artificial “rights” dreamed up by the humanists it represents a most asymmetric interpretation of ethics. For it claims to privilege the particular and probably transient wishes, feelings and conveniences of a single adult woman, over the right to life of the future baby. The mother cruelly misled by her society, and coerced into doing a most unnatural thing, to kill the fruit of her own womb, destroys for ever the right to life for an innocent unborn human.
    Happily this is not likely to happen to this particular baby and let us be grateful for that.

    • It’s an intriguing question: are all aborted (spontaneously or clinically) foeti in heaven and inheritors of the coming kingdom? If so, it would seem that the redeemed will mainly be aborted foeti.

  • John

    Excellent and revealing post. Of course there is no principled moral foundation for the pro-abortion lobby which shamelessly affords full rights to the strong and none to the voiceless or disabled. The abortion culture is just a murderous demand for personal convenience for an irresponsible, self-centred, throwaway society.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Although I tend to agree with you I think that in fairness I should point out that some women who are unhappy to be pregnant might not consider themselves to be “strong.”

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    Surely it would have been sufficient to announce “The duchess is pregnant” – saying it is with the third child- or any child – is superfluous unless the duchess could also give birth to kittens.

    • Little Black Censored

      Do you really prefer the word “pregnant”? Do you prefer a version of the New Testament that says “Mary was pregnant?

      • IanCad

        A very good point! I for one, will not employ “pregnant” again. Even if our cats were, by some miracle to conceive, they will be considered to be with kitten.

        • Maalaistollo

          The Chinese think they are great with rice.

          • betteroffoutofit

            They can’t be worse than “Chow Mine”!!!!

            Oh dear. The perils of a yellowing civilisation.

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        *sniff* one could perhaps use enceinte…

    • Anton

      Twins?

      • bluedog

        Phillip and Diana.

      • betteroffoutofit

        Quite!
        ‘With child’ (pregnant) with a child (foetus)” —

    • James60498 .

      As a foetus is, apparently, not human, then giving birth to kittens must, be a distinct possibility

      • carl jacobs

        “Fetus” is a legal designation and not a biological designation. It means “A human being not considered a person in the eyes of the law (and therefore not protected by the law) so that the mother may legally revoke the obligations of parenthood before they attach.”

        • James60498 .

          Actually it is a Latin word that means little person, or even little man.

          But yes. That’s just one of the confusions that they get themselves into.

          • carl jacobs

            Well, yes, if you want to be technical about it. But the pro-abortionists had to come up with some new designation to justify themselves. And “fetus” was the perfect word to hijack for the task.

          • Brian

            Actually, my understanding of the Latin word (from Cassell’s New Latin Dictionary) is that it means: “1. the bearing of young 2. transf., ‘offspring, what has been brought forth'” (p. 246). So apparently it doesn’t mean ‘conceptus in utero’ but ‘what has been born’. In other words, the precise opposite of how it is used in legal terminology- which of course has no more scientific foundation than ancient ideas about ‘quickening’ (the foundation for the Muslim acceptance of abortion up to 40 days). I always say ‘unborn child’ and it is obvious to all scientists that human life is a continuum. Words like ‘person’ are theological in meaning, not biological. They take their force from reflection on the identity of the unborn child in the womb of Mary.

          • James60498 .

            Thank you for that very useful addition to my knowledge.

            I too would under normal circumstances only ever say “unborn child”. That is what it is.

            I used “foetus” on this occasion merely to enforce the nonsense of the rest of my statement.

        • Marcus Stewart

          No, it’s both.

  • Dolphinfish

    Peter Hitchens Is one of my favourite social commentators, and he really knocks it out of the ballpark here, as his atheist opponent found to his cost.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1tNfYvgVLS8

    Be warned however. Hitchens is not a man who fits easily into pigeon holes, and not all of the John Bull types active on this blog will appreciate everything he has to say.

    • David

      Thank you for the link to the Peter Hitchins debate. He wiped the floor with the atheist baby killer I thought.

    • James60498 .

      Yes. I often think that he would be up there with a senior position in my Cabinet when I take over and then he goes and says something mad.

      But nothing at all wrong with this.

      Perhaps the BBC would show it on the news. Ok. Probably not.

  • IanCad

    Beautiful YG! A well aimed, direct kick to the goolies of the utilitarian tendency. I hope it hurts.
    Best wishes to the royal couple. They have a tough row to hoe.

  • len

    Every foetus is a child.

    • Linus

      Every sperm is sacred
      Every sperm is good
      Every sperm is holy
      In a Catholic neighbourhood…

    • betteroffoutofit

      Indeed – Though we may not identify the precise moment when the ‘Breath of God’ imbues the physical being, it is most likely present as the new individual develops.

  • bluedog

    Good news Monday, Your Grace, and impeccable timing if one may say so.

  • Martin

    Ah, the hypocrisy of the world.

  • Hi

    Yippie ! Congrats to the duke and duchess . As for names? Hannah is well cool suggestion. You can spell the name backward and it still stays as Hannah , like it is a palindrome ! Also .Good to see the royals are helping out with the declining birth rate, by setting an example to the populace.

    • CliveM

      Very uncool if it happens to be a boy. Do you know something?

      • Hi

        Boys names could be : Isaac, Samuel, Daniel, Ezekiel, Elijah, David , Solomon , Moses…..

    • Brian Kelly

      Yes – and a great matriarch of Israel. There’s quite a good choice in palindromic names for girls (such as Havvah, tho’ that doesn’t work in in Hebrew, and Ava, Ada, Elle etc), but the Hebrew Scriptures also gives for boys Abba, Asa and Natan (modern Heb. spelling). But the child’s imperial German ancestry would best by conveyed by ‘Otto’, in anticipation of the resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire, so nefariously destroyed by Napoleon and now being restored by Frau Merkel. But if the child is gender-fluid, zhe will have to be ‘Pip’.

    • Anton

      The world’s first conversation was palindromic:

      “Madam, I’m Adam.”

      “Eve.”

      • Inspector General

        Ah, you’ve amended it and got it right, Anton. One always says you shouldn’t believe anything Anton puts down on here until he’s had a chance to correct it….

        : – >

        • Anton

          Better than not correcting it, Inspector…

        • Anton

          Another palindrome, about Ferdinand de Lesseps:

          A man, a plan, a canal… Panama!

      • Pubcrawler

        Ave Eva.

  • Jim Welsh

    Here in the States we are seeing the same lack of consistency from the mainstream media.

    • carl jacobs

      Hey! Another American! This blog needs more Americans. It’s well known the we have a positive influence on Brits.

      Welcome to Cranmer’s.

      • CliveM

        I agree, more Americans the better. You need our civilising influence! Now repeat after me “The rain in Spain, falls mainly on the plain”…………

        • Royinsouthwest

          Are you sure that the rain doesn’t fall mainly on the mountains like in most countries that have mountains?

          • CliveM

            I’m not a meteorological expert :0)

        • Maalaistollo

          Indeed, good to know that this blog is read not just throughout the civilised world, but also in America!

        • carl jacobs

          No, see, you are missing the whole “Americans are a positive influence on Brits” aspect of my comment. For example, if you get poor food in a restaurant, we can teach you how to say something besides “This food is delicious!” when the waiter come to inquire. And you will no longer have to apologize to a lamp post when you bump into it. Don’t you see the massive benefits?

          • Pubcrawler

            “And you will no longer have to apologize to a lamp post when you bump into it.”

            How rude! Almost French, in fact.

          • carl jacobs

            American: [Bump] ” Ow! I should look where I am going.”

            Brit: [Bump] “Oh! Sorry, sorry. I’ll stay out of your way next time. Sorry.”

            Frenchman: [Bump] “What? How dare you put yourself between me and where I am going!”

          • Anton

            That’s the German attitude. The Frenchman would surrender to the lamppost.

          • Sarky

            The italians would just run away!!

          • betteroffoutofit

            Well yes . . . but the Frog would ‘talk big’ first.

        • Manfarang

          The wat’r in Majorca don’t taste like what it or’a
          More like it.

  • Linus

    What a load of old cobblers…

    Ms Middleclass is expecting a child, ie. she is expecting, anticipating or assuming that the embryo in her uterus will gestate to term, be expelled by her body and become her third child.

    In the meantime she’s taking advantage of the fact that her hyperemesis gravidarum means she can eat whatever she likes and barf it straight back up without being accused of suffering from bulimia.

    Pity Diana was too thick to figure that one out.

    I wonder, is there a recognised condition that causes pregnant women to hurl themselves down flights of stairs? Might the next royal scoop not be something along the lines of “Breaking News: Kate in hospital after sharp attack of rare pregnancy condition hyperdescentoprecipitous staircasium”?

    • Royinsouthwest

      You have some strange ideas. You draw a distinction between a foetus and a child even though the natural expectation is that a foetus will become a child just as a child will become an adult. Sadly neither of those two exceptions is always fulfiled but that does not mean that they are wrong.

      However, while you over-emphasise the distinction between a foetus and a child you minimise the differences between a sperm and a foetus in your ridiculous little ditty earlier. The average ejaculation produces something of the order of 200 million sperm but none of them are capable of producing life without an egg and eggs, of course, are produced in vastly smaller numbers. Even so, an egg without a sperm is as insignificant as a sperm without an egg, because both sexes, and not an amorphous selection of “genders” are needed to produce life.

      • Brian

        Facts? Who needs them when you can emote angrily and contemptuously about women?

        • CliveM

          Oh it’s not just women with our Linus. He also gets a kick out of mocking the disabled and disability.

          • Brian

            Probably from a fear of ending up that way himself – as we all will unless a swift death intervenes. Atheists struggle with despair and meaningless because they have hardened their hearts to Christ.

          • CliveM

            Linus also hardened his heart to decency.

      • CliveM

        200 million! In Linus’s case 4 or 5.

    • Royinsouthwest

      You seemed pleased to know of Happy Jack’s illness and now you seem to look forward to Kate experiencing bad health. What on earth is wrong with you?

      • Brian

        might be envy?

      • len

        What is wrong with Linus?.
        Some have pondered that point , some cannot be bothered .But if Linus is a role model for atheism I can only thank God I’m saved.

    • Inspector General

      Narcissists are grumpy when the spotlight isn’t shining on them at the best of times, but they REALLY resent a new baby on the way…

      • carl jacobs

        That was worth a standing eight count.

        • Inspector General

          May God bless and keep you Carl.

      • Especially homosexual narcissists.

        • Inspector General

          Marie. Having spent 6 years studying how Linus (and DanJ0 before him) ticks, it is doubtful whether true narcissism exists outside the male intensely homosexual community. We see the result in their Gay Pride celebrations, though it must be added, the worst of it is hide behind the sofa stuff…

          • Royinsouthwest

            DanJO was preferable to Linus. He did occasionally make thoughtful points.

          • Inspector General

            No he wasn’t, Roy. He was as bad and only here to help lube the progression of queer marriage. When it happened, he was gone.

  • Marcus Stewart

    ‘The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, tweeted: “Wonderful news – delighted and praying for The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their family.”‘

    There’s a point of greater significance than that made about Justin’s remark. If this is indeed good news for the family, as I believe as well as he, why is it? I suggest the answer is that the foetus is indeed a baby, which I believe Justin would find hard to take issue with (but should be put to him). It isn’t just good news, and worthy of God’s blessing, approbation, or whatever petition he’s making, because the family apparently WANT it, but because it is the beginning of a being – a person – regardless of its wantedness.

    If this is so, why does the PC CofE never express negative view of abortion, prattling on instead about domestic abuse, genital mutilation and all manner of Guardianista obsession? If those issues matter (and they do, of course), THIS is imperative. I know – I’ve answered my own question: because (i) it can’t reconcile “women’s rights” with “right to life” so says nothing; (ii) it’s become too brainless to engage in rigorous moral theology, which has been consigned to the universities (and as such is a roast potato there in those PC, hyper-secular institutions).

    As always for me, the CofE is a permanent disappointment, doing nothing to serve the nation, by taking its lead from middle-class, PC, heathen liberals. Quelle surprise: that describes half the clergy.

  • Inspector General

    The Prime Directive, chaps!

    The Royal foetus MUST be kept safe. It goes without saying what a coup this would be for them if the pro-choice people cuts its throat, or whatever it is these baby killing ghouls do.

    A round-the-clock guard will be mounted. The SAS will be involved in the background. Anything resembling a woman’s rights child destroyer to be shot on sight. We cannot take chances.

    The Inspector will arrange for leading feminists to be taken into custody for the duration, or to disappear for good, depending on their perceived threat on an individual basis…

    The Guards Division to be placed on standby! No public demonstrations will be allowed. The Riot Act will be read at any that materialise. London will be placed under martial law if necessary.

    The child MUST live

    God Save The Queen!

    • Linus

      If it doesn’t, will they hold you personally responsible and send you to the Tower to have your head cut off?

      So how does one pray to this Sky Pixie of yours again?…

      • The Duke of Umberland, England

        ‘There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.’

        Prof. CS Lewis

        • grutchyngfysch

          I’m a fan of Lewis generally but in this instance I prefer the original words of Christ when dividing the two kinds of people:

          “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

        • Linus

          Like so much written by CS Lewis, what a load of old cobblers.

          And aren’t you getting a little ahead of yourself? Before you can interest someone in what your Sky Pixie wants, you have to persuade him that such a being exists.

          You can tell me what Bilbo Baggins and Aslan the magical lion want until you’re blue in the face, but unless you can convince me they’re real, I’ll just dismiss your story as a fairy tale.

          Why should I care what a mythical Sky Pixie wants? How can it possibly affect me?

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

          • Linus

            More quotes from the Pixiebook, eh?

            As I’ve already said, if I don’t believe in the Sky Pixie, why would I believe that the Pixiebook is anything more than a work of fiction?

            You might as well quote passages from Harry Potter at me for all the good they’ll do. The Pixiebook can’t prove itself true merely by being read.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            Neither can a textbook on chemistry.

            Who on earth is asking you to believe the Bible?

          • Linus

            Why quote it at me if you don’t want me to believe it? What possible good can it do?

            Or perhaps you’re just trying to preach to the converted. That’s about all Pixtians are capable of these days. And as the number of the converted falls daily, to the point where Britain is now a majority atheist country, it’s a job that’s gets easier and easier as time goes by.

            Fairly soon you’ll be able to gather all Pixtians in one room and dispense with blogs like this one altogether.

            When that happens, a word of advice: don’t drink the Kool-Aid. It won’t bring you nearer to Sky Pixie, but it will give you a headache from which you may never recover.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            At the risk of repetition, I am using you as a mere tool. You aim at the Judeao-Christians; I aim at the Judeao-Christians.

            I like fixed targets – they don’t move about.

          • Linus

            You like singing to the choir, you mean. They’re a captive audience.

            So much for your duty as a Pixtian to carry out the Great Commission. No wonder your religion is dying out when its believers have given up on evangelisation.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            I’ve just told you, above, He didn’t come to call the righteous but sinners.

          • Linus

            No, you’ve told me that the Pixiebook tells a story about a character called Sky Pixie Jr. who claims to be the son of Sky Pixie Sr. and, as a result, demands that we all follow his arbitrary rules and regulations on pain of eternal torture.

            This I already knew, but as the Pixiebook offers no proof of Sky Pixie Jr.’s identity in the form of verifiable physical traces or anything else that could support the unlikely stories it tells about the “miracles” he’s supposed to have performed, there is no reason to believe that it’s anything more than an ancient myth or legend. This includes the odd concept of “sin”, which, if I understand it correctly, means anything (those who wrote the characters of) Sky Pixie Sr. and Jr. disapprove(d) of.

            I therefore do not recognise myself as a “sinner” and feel no obligation to follow any of the behavioural strictures outlined by Sky Pixie Jr. (or his putative father, for that matter) in the Pixiebook.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            Who called you a sinner?

            I’ve been writing on the presumption that you are ‘righteous’:

            And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

          • Linus

            A chemistry textbook can describe experiments to me that I can then do myself in order to verify the results with my own eyes. Others can do the same experiments and we can compare our results. If they are identical then we can confirm the truth of the information supplied by the chemistry textbook.

            The Pixiebook offers no such method of scientific verification. It’s a series of unsubstantiated and untestable assertions.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            Your father didn’t love you.

          • Linus

            Yes he did.

            How do I know?

            Firstly, he told me so often.

            Secondly, he went out of his way to take care of me when I was a child and was always there to offer assistance and guidance when I was an adult.

            Thirdly, being interested in science and devoting a large part of his exiguous income to sponsoring interesting research projects, he once, not long before he died, took part in a fascinating experiment designed to measure oxytocin levels in the brain.

            Although the overall results of the study were inconclusive due to the difficulty of obtaining exact measurements of the quantity of hormone released at any given time, it was clear that when exposed to images of his wife and children, my father’s oxytocin levels were significantly higher than when looking at anyone else. As oxytocin is the hormone that causes social attachment, which is the behaviour we commonly call “love”, I therefore have clear evidence that my father did indeed love me.

            Now, if Sky Pixie loves me too, why don’t I call up the researchers and ask them if they wouldn’t mind repeating the experiment on him? We’ll have to make an appointment of course, and as you claim he can materialise as a man, there shouldn’t be too many issues of incompatible brain structure to deal with, now should there?

            I’ll wait for your confirmation that he’s open to the idea before I make the call, shall I?

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            Nein!

            It is untestable.

            Not in chemistry textbook.

          • Linus

            Doch!

            It is eminently testable, and with modern means of measuring oxytocin levels, probably even more testable today than it was during my father’s lifetime. He’s only been dead for little more than a decade, but things have moved on a great deal since the study he participated in.

            It may not be in your chemistry textbook, but it’s documented and reviewed elsewhere. Perhaps you should understand that your chemistry textbook doesn’t contain all knowledge and widen your horizons a little.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            Oh! I see! Now we’re being invited to use other types of tests and standards of belief – the type you have been denigrating all along.

            You’ll be telling us next that your mother loved you.

          • grutchyngfysch

            There is one thing, Linus. You can repent. Unlike yourself, the Bible is not evasive on this point: it’s right there from the start. Repent. You don’t want to do that? I can’t make you. But don’t pretend there’s no way of finding out: there is – you just can’t bring yourself to do it, quite literally.

          • Linus

            Repent? Why? What have I done that I need to repent of (or is it “for”? I’m rather vague about which verb goes with which preposition when it comes to Pixtian vocabulary that I never use)?

            Repentance presupposes regret and contrition, and I feel no regret about how I live my life, nor about my belief that Sky Pixie is a figment of the imagination. Nor do I feel regret about taking his believers to task over their homophobic hate speech.

            So tell me, how does one repent when one has done nothing that needs to be repented of (or for)?

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            And so we come full-circle back to:

            And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

          • Linus

            You see, it doesn’t start meaning something just because you repeat it.

            I know the obsessive/compulsive religious brain often believes that repetition and ritualisation can make things come true, but there’s no scientific evidence of this.

            But chant away. At least while you’re chanting harmless inanities, you won’t be beating up gays or spitting on women who go to abortion clinics.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            At the risk of repetition I’ve already told you that I regard you as ‘righteous’.

            Aren’t you pleased with that?

            Not once have I imputed sin to you, nor described you as sinner.

          • Linus

            Why do you think your opinion of me is of any interest to me at all?

            Love me, hate me, think of me as you will. Who cares what you think? Not I.

            And as for “sin”, whether you think me guilty of it or not is neither here nor there if it doesn’t exist. And I have no proof that it does.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            Ah! Back to the chemistry textbook and the supposed father.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            Which opinion?

          • Linus

            Any opinion. Whatever it may be. I have no interest in knowing it, but as a Pixtian, you won’t be able to stop yourself stating it sooner or later. That’s what you people do: judge, condemn and despise.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            What a strange reaction from someone to whom I’ve attributed ‘righteousness’:

            ‘That’s what you people do: judge, condemn and despise.’

          • Linus

            Pixtian ideas of what constitutes “righteousness” are so repugnant that any Pixtian who describes me as righteous slanders me in the worst possible terms.

            But as I say, who cares? Pixtian slurs are like water off a duck’s back to me. That’s what Pixtians do: judge, condemn and despise.

          • Anton

            Why did you bother writing that reply? Do tell.

          • Linus

            Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Or in this case, the Sky Pixie or the qualities and motives attributed to him?

            Only if the Sky Pixie is real can the qualities and motives attributed to him be anything more than literary invention. So before any serious discussion of exactly what those qualities and motives are can take place, it has to be established that he actually exists.

            If he’s a figment of your imagination, why would anyone want to waste time debating his nature? His nature would be what you wanted it to be and therefore non-negotiable. That how the imagination works.

            So before there can be any point in discussing who Sky Pixie is, what he’s like and what he wants from us, his existence has to be established and reasonable proofs of it supplied.

            So go on then, where is he? Show me he exists. Give me solid, verifiable proof. Then we can discuss what he’s like and what he wants from us. But until then, he’s just a figment of your imagination and I’m really not interested in your fantasies and your idea of what an omnipotent being would look like if such a thing existed.

      • Inspector General

        The foetus will thrive and reach majority. Be in no doubt about that. And then it will be your better. As indeed, all who subscribe to Cranmer are…

  • Jon of GSG

    There was a princess of Kent, or maybe a queen, who was canonised, whose name was Sexburga. Now there’s a thoroughly stylish royal name which is both ancient and strangely of our times.

    • Maalaistollo

      Do you want fries with that?

      • betteroffoutofit

        Just six of them, perhaps?

    • CliveM

      Now that would be a great name, if it’s a girl.

  • allan taylor

    Yaaaaaaawwn!

    • len

      Past you bed time?

      • carl jacobs

        No, I suspect he was attempting to communicate the idea that the thesis of this blog post is not worthy of an actual response. A dismissal of this nature is a common tactic employed by those who do not wish to admit to their inconsistency but have no means to explain away their inconsistency.

        • Manfarang

          Nuclear war with DPRK?

          • Royinsouthwest

            So, nobody in the world should think about anything else, should they? They should stop thinking about things we can control, such as how we treat unborn babies, and instead think about Kim Jong-un who we cannot control.

          • Manfarang

            Carl’s lot threw them out.

          • bluedog

            Huh?

          • Manfarang

            George III and his descendants.

          • bluedog

            Right. Right. Silly me. Should have guessed from your posts. But it’s still not clear what George III has to do with Kim Jong-un.

          • Manfarang

            Kim Jon-in is much more of a threat than monarchy.

          • bluedog

            Okay. Okay. But George III is dead and Kim isn’t and the Queen isn’t threatening to rain atom bombs on Trump and stuff.

          • Manfarang

            Exactly. Kim is threatening to rain atomic bombs.

          • betteroffoutofit

            And anyway George III got a bad rap. He took the blame for what Parliament and the East India Company were up to . . .

        • Brian

          The question of unborn children and how you should think and talk about them and how they are treated always produces paroxysms of angst and grief among liberals and atheists. There are several reasons for this. Many liberals and atheists believe they are kinder, more generous and more inclusive of others than the conservatives and religious people they look down on. In some cases this may be true, although there is no evidence that liberals and atheists are personally more generous than conservatives and religious; the evidence goes the other way, in fact, and it is not difficult to see why (since almsgiving is central to our faith). Secondly, liberals/atheists see themselves on the vanguard of women’s liberation and pregnancy as the enemy of women’s freedom. Yet it is intrinsic to women’s biological and psychological to nurture life and sex is all bound up with this. (Which is why women’s sexual interest diminishes after they have given birth but their nurturing side doesn’t.) Abortion can only be countenanced by cauterising the conscience, and the way to do this is by wrapping the subject up in the mythical language of ‘rights’ and Orwellian control of language. Whoever controls the language controls the debate. Hence the non-biological word ‘fetus’ for the preborn child.

  • seansaighdeoir

    Great post YG very apposite.

  • David

    I rejoice at the fact that Jacob Rees – Mogg has stated unequivocally that he is totally opposed to abortion. But then, being one of those in the pro-Mogg for Conservative Leader group I already have a position.

    • James60498 .

      I fear that anyone who as leader would make me want to rejoin the party isn’t going to become leader.

      But wouldn’t it be wonderful if he did.

      • David

        Yes I take your` point !
        Time will tell whether the Mogg becomes leader. It still seems unlikely at present.

    • Anton

      “I’m totally opposed to it and believe it’s wrong but I wouldn’t do anything about it.”

    • Busy Mum

      Did he really state it unequivocally? From what he actually said, if the RCC changed its teachings, Rees Mogg would change his views.

  • Busy Mum

    The problem with abortion debate is the focus on the foetus/human/clump of cells question. This deflects the discussion from why women are seeking abortion in the first place.

    • Anton

      Yes. They’ve already made their choice.

      • Busy Mum

        Abortion is the second wrong that does not make the first wrong right.

      • betteroffoutofit

        Ah. There’s the prob. Did they choose? Was the choice mistaken, or based on lies and deception, or some other form of seduction? And where did the ‘Daddies’ go when the time came for the second choice?

        • Anton

          Unless it was rape they all chose.

          • betteroffoutofit

            That’s what I mean by “Did they choose?”; though some have claimed there’s no such thing as rape . . .

          • betteroffoutofit

            Of course there’s always this aspect of choice – just came across Flanders and Swann again and decided their Madeira fits well here 🙂 . . .

          • betteroffoutofit

            And here’s an illustration of one of the other aspects of choice – just came across Flanders and Swann again and decided their “Madeira” fits well here 🙂 . . .

            https://www.youtube.com/wat

    • betteroffoutofit

      Exactly. As you say below — it’s not the first wrong in the chain of errors.

      I’m no feminist, but why the girls all get the blame on this one beats me. Talk about being left “holding the baby” . . .

    • Dominic Stockford

      “I knew you BEFORE you were formed in the womb…” But then that’s only God’s opinion!

      • Anton

        Not an easy verse to work out… for we have no memory whatsoever of knowing God at such a time. Does He induce amnesia in a spirit that is slipped into a material foetus? Or does the human spirit grow in parallel with the body in the womb, and does this verse mean that God knows the future including the personalities of all men yet to come? I’ll take the latter.

        • Dominic Stockford

          “Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”

          Psalm 139:16. I’ll go with what it says, even if I can’t fully understand it.

        • betteroffoutofit

          Expands on my own thoughts below … thank you.

  • carl jacobs

    Now, now. Just because more Americans would mean you would lose more arguments, that’s no reason to shoot yourself. Think of it as a learning opportunity.

  • Paul Correa

    Choice comes before conception.