Gendercide5b
Ethics & Morality

If babies may be aborted on the grounds of their sex, why not sexuality?

 

“Thank heaven for little girls,” sang Maurice Chevalier in the 1958 film Gigi. The reason? Well, mainly because they i) “get bigger every day”; and ii) “grow up in the most delightful way”. Librettist Alan Jay Lerner then fleshes out his rationale with an appeal to bewitchery and chemistry: “Those little eyes so helpless and appealing” which “One day will flash and send you crashin’ through the ceilin'”. But, basically, beyond this lyrical banality, we thank heaven for little girls “For without them, what would little boys do?” What, indeed.

Today Parliament votes on Fiona Bruce’s amendment to the Serious Crime Bill, the aim of which is to clarify the law. That is all. It is not to change the law on abortion, for the Abortion Act 1967 already sets out the parameters within which and by which a termination may be procured – namely that two doctors must agree that the continuance of the pregnancy presents greater risk of damage to the mental or physical health of the mother than termination; and that there should be substantial risk that the child, if born, “would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped”.

Fiona Bruce’s amendment would change neither of these conditions: it simply clarifies that, since being female is neither a physical nor mental abnormality, the sex of the baby in the womb cannot be considered a risk to the mental or physical health of the mother, and so justifiable grounds for termination. Being the ‘wrong sex’ and growing up to present the ‘wrong gender’ ought not to be a reason to kill a healthy developing baby in the womb. But those who framed the law in 1967 never clarified this because they simply never conceived that it would become so.

The abortion lobby and feminist groups have been campaigning hard against this amendment. Astonishingly hard. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the End Violence Against Women coalition, Voice for Choice, the Royal College of Midwives, and the British Medical Association are all ranged against the move. They argue that: “This is the wrong piece of legislation to address the issue of son-preference and gender discrimination and could disadvantage the very women it claims to be helping.” They don’t, of course, explain how we ought to “address the issue of son-preference and gender discrimination” (in which communities?). Presumably they advocate education as the preferred means of enlightenment, such that thousands of dead potential girls is a price worth paying for a 30-year generational shift in attitudes (that is, should the education work).

And the TUC (Labour’s paymasters) are reported to have written to all Labour MPs to exhort them to vote against the amendment because to prohibit sex-selective abortions would “divide communities”. Which communities they do not specify, presumably because to do so would divide communities.

But perhaps the most egregious misrepresentation of Fiona Bruce’s amendment comes from Alastair Kent, Director of Genetic Alliance UK. He argues that the law ought not to be changed (or, indeed, clarified) because sex-selective abortion in some circumstances “can be the only option if couples wish to avoid having a child with a life-limiting disease”. It doesn’t appear to occur to him that such an eventuality is already catered for in the two statutory conditions laid out in the Act, namely that to proceed with the pregnancy risks damaging the mental or physical health of the mother; and that the child, if born, would be disabled or otherwise abnormal. It beggars belief that Parliament should fail to clarify the law to prohibit sex-selective abortion simply because 0.001% of foetuses might suffer from X-linked Severe Combined Immunodeficiency.

But Alastair Kent then expounds his principal objection to the amendment, which rather belies his genetic conditions reasoning:

There is another reason why this amendment should be rejected. If adopted, it would require doctors to prioritise the foetus over the wellbeing of the mother. Once a specific characteristic of the foetus, in this case its gender, has been determined to be unacceptable as a ground for abortion, it opens the door to other reasons being added to the list on societally determined grounds and is a step towards recognising the “personhood” of the foetus. This would afford the foetus rights that would be in conflict with those of the mother.

God forbid that the sex of the baby in the womb might constitute an essence of identity. Maleness and femaleness can never become “a step towards recognising” the humanity of the baby, for if the foetus is neither ‘he’ nor ‘she’, it remains an impersonal, uncoloured, unemotional ‘it’.

But Alastair Kent is right in one respect: namely that to recognise that the sex of the foetus is unacceptable grounds for abortion might indeed open the door to other reasons being added. For if two doctors might agree that for an Asian woman to give birth to a girl presents any kind of risk to her mental or physical health, how much more so might the sexuality of the foetus? Science is not there – yet. But the ‘gay gene’, should it ever be discovered, would be a certain and sure justification for foetal termination among some communities (best not to say which). If there can be no sex equality in the womb, why should there be equality of sexuality? When these battles are raging in 2065, will they just dispassionately observe that those who framed the 2015 amendment never clarified this simply because they never conceived that it would become so?

  • bluedog

    Masterly, Your Grace. Of course, none of this sex-selective abortion, or abortion for any other entirely plausible reason constitutes eugenics, does it? I mean, we don’t do eugenics, do we?

    • The Explorer

      In the palmy days before Nazism, people like George Bernard Shaw were quite overt about eugenics. The US school textbook ‘A Civic Biology’ (the one that featured in the Scopes Trial) warned of the infamous Jukes family who included “33 sexually immoral, 24 confirmed drunkards, 3 epileptics, and 143 feeble-minded”. Solution? Right there, in a text book, the means to prevent “the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race”.

  • sarky

    Just read that Trade Unions have come out against this amendment as it is discriminatory against certain communities? ????? Interestingly those very communities have come out to say that they find sex selective abortion abhorrent.
    Prehaps the loony left should seek out the opinions of those they claim to represent before speaking on their behalf.

  • ‘“This is the wrong piece of legislation to address the issue of son-preference and gender discrimination and could disadvantage the very women it claims to be helping.”

    This is very interesting. Surely the amendment is aiming to help as-yet unborn women from being killed in the womb solely because of their sex. In what way will it disadvantage them? In what way would it be to their advantage to be aborted?

    • sarky

      It’s talking about the mothers. Basically saying that they could be in danger of abuse by producing a daughter.

      • Really? Golly! How perceptive of you!
        .
        The point is that The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives have no interest or care for the unborn.

        • The British Medical Association has also come out against the Fiona Brice amendment.

    • The Explorer

      It would be to their advantage only if you take a Philip Larkin or Samuel Beckett view that it would be better never to have been born.

  • Darter Noster

    It wouldn’t matter much if they did ban it. Before 24 weeks abortion on demand is an established reality, despite being officially illegal, so as long as the abortion-seekers weren’t daft enough to explicitly ask for a sex-selective abortion in the hearing of anyone who cared then they’d get it anyway. Like 95% of abortions in this country (about 160-170,000 per year, I think) it would just get put through on the nod under ground C – serious risk of greater damage to physical or mental health of the woman than if the pregnancy were allowed to continue. Ground C has just become a catch-all, enabling abortion for any reason to be permitted under mental health grounds.

    • James60498 .

      Spot on.

  • The Explorer

    Nietzsche dreamed of evolving the Superman: by which he meant the sort of magnificent individual who recognised the beauty of selfishness. But a planner who understood ‘Superman’ in physical terms might have eliminated Nietzsche at birth, if not before. Certainly, after Nietzsche’s riding accident.
    C S Lewis said it all in ‘The Abolition of Man’: once the Controllers get the power to determine the future of the race, then the future of the race will depend on the preferences and values of the Controllers. It’s Hobbes’ philosophy of having the power to impose your will: transferred from politics to biology. We aren’t there yet, but if an equivalent of Hitler were to hijack the programme, then we could be.

    • Coniston

      The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre makes the point that we now live in an ’emotivist’ culture, in which all moral decisions are based on feelings, tastes and passions: there is no objective truth or moral values. In such a situation the feelings and desires of the ruling political/cultural elite are supreme.
      Nothing is higher than their will, which is legislated into law and forced on everyone else.

  • The Explorer

    Since diversity is now defined as “more people like me”, imagine the future under the control of a diversity programme.

    • sarky

      Thought we already were under the Control of a diversity programme!!!!

      • The Explorer

        In that case, the future race depends on which ‘me’ of the future is calling the shots.

    • Inspector General

      Absolutely brilliant, Explorer. You really deserve some prestigious award for that subtle observation.

      Well done, Sir!!

      On that subject, Pink News has an article today “Babies with two biological same-sex parents could become a reality in just two years”. Another almighty rush to add to the number of freaks alive on this planet. No doubt the hapless results of this monstrous experiment, if it comes about, will be raised as homosexuals to lead the queer movement in the future. And no, I don’t think parliament will block it. Not the present gay acquiescing crowd in there. Perhaps we’ve a chance with a good helping of UKIP types.

      A chap continues to see UKIP as our only hope on some many issues these days. What do you say to that, Cranmer? Are you with us now, sir?

      • The Explorer

        Thank you for your kind words.

  • Dominic Stockford

    If this legislation is overturned by the rampant feminist hordes in liberal parts of parliament, there won’t be any women in certain parts of society (best not to say which) and then they’ll want women from other parts of society in order to continue reproducing and enlarging their part of society. That’ll put the rampant hordes of feminists on the back foot.

    • The Explorer

      Unless brides continue to be imported from a particular part of the world, to make up the shortfall. (And uncontaminated by western values, which makes them all the better.)

      • Dominic Stockford

        best not to say which

        • The Explorer

          Which is why I didn’t.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Although, some people from southern France might like to come here.

          • The Explorer

            If they’re in France legally, there’s nothing to stop them, is there, short of our exit from the EU?

          • Dominic Stockford

            What a jolly good suggestion. One of the political parties should adopt that as a policy.

          • Uncle Brian

            Wine growers from the Beaujolais region? I can well understand that the prospect of home-grown Chateauneuf-du-Pape might give rise to alarm and despondency in certain Protestant circles.

    • Peter Hitchens in his recent e-book ‘Short breaks in Mordor’ wrote about the growing phenomenon of girls being kidnapped and traded in China, where due to gendercide men cannot find brides.

      The feminists will deal with this by pretending it isn’t happening, as with the BBC’s deafening silence over this issue.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Your Grace, a very pertinent Blog.
    Explorer quoted C S Lewis said it all in ‘The Abolition of Man’: once the Controllers get the power to determine the future of the race, then the future of the race will depend on the preferences and values of the Controllers.

    Surely we are already subject to the whims of the controllers. Our morality in society has been decimated by a series of Acts of Parliament that have had and will have very a significant effect on life as we have known it. Not wishing to say which areas in case it brings the thought police upon us, there seemeth no hope hope for Christian believers other than in the Lord himself. Certainly not in the vast majority of those elected to lead us.

    • I agree, but it is not a case of each new anti-natural law being more insane than the previous one. Instead, it is that each of these laws reveals a little more about the absolute wickedness of the first anti-natural law – Abortion. The worst has already happened. We are just reaping its natural consequences.

  • Albert

    Excellent post, Dr C – especially the response to Kent. In the end, the real reason they oppose this equality legislation is because they see the logic: if it is wrong to abort a child because it is a girl, isn’t it wrong to abort a child because it is a human being? The force of that logic is so strong that I would be astonished if this Fiona Bruce’s amendment gets through.

  • carl jacobs

    It is interesting how certain decisions reveal the heart. Until an arbitrary deadline is reached, the unborn child has no rights except those conferred by the mother for the sake of the mother. All the pomposity about physical and mental health is revealed as a sham. Any reason is sufficient for abortion – even the crime of being a girl. If the Law allows a child can be aborted for gender, then what reason exists to prevent any abortion? That is the principle the Pro-Abortionists are defending. Any reason for abortion must be considered legitimate because the only person involved is the woman. No Pro-Abortionist will ever be able to claim otherwise if this amendment is defeated.

    Abortion on demand for any reason at any time. That’s what they claim the Law must demand.

    • The Explorer

      “The only person involved is the woman.” This is taken as self-evident in some quarters. That it need not be so is shown if we consider the Nazis. Abortion was forbidden to a German woman (unless impregnated by the wrong sort of male, in which case it was required). For a Russian or Polish woman in a German prison camp, abortion was compulsory.
      I can actually think of another cultural situation in which the opinion of the woman is not paramount, but since it’s contemporary I won’t cite it by name.

    • Uncle Brian

      A few years ago, maybe around 2000, I read somewhere that in the United States the abortion industry had achieved what it was intended to achieve, namely a relative decline of the black population. Is it possible that the British pro-abortion lobby has similarly set itself a target in terms of demographics? If so, what target might that be? Something to do, perhaps, with culling the unborn daughters in Muslim families? But that runs into the difficulty, as The Explorer has already pointed out, that those families are free to carry on importing their tribal brides from the old country.

      • A few years ago, maybe around 2000 … “
        You’ve been around a while then.

        • Uncle Brian

          Thank you, Jack. I’ll rewrite that.
          “The other day, maybe around 2000 …”

  • Dreadnaught

    I sent the proforma request posted by Cranmer, for MPs (in my case Ben Wallace) to support for the amendment and was pleased to receive his letter of confirmation and commitment to its passage.

  • ‘without them what would little boys do?’

    …or indeed the many men (50 million in India and 30 million in China, I hear) who will now NEVER be able to marry? Peter Hitchens write about gendercide in China in his recent e-book ‘Short Breaks in Mordor’ (which I highly recommend-PH has visited most of the world’s worst [email protected] where most journalists fear to tread).

    Like many others who were involved in anti-abortion campaigning, I gave it up as a lost cause after the failure of the Alton Bill left us with effective abortion on request up to birth. That is what our nation of fornicators and adulterers wanted.

    The inevitable failure of Fiona Bruce’s modest and just amendent will confirm that Britain exalts personal and sexual liberty over justice and gives a one finger salute to the Creator.

    We were warned.

  • The Explorer

    “Without them what would little boys do?” Actually, the Victorian public school may have given a partial answer to that question.

  • carl jacobs

    Abortion was sold as an exceptional act for exceptional circumstances. In other words, the obligation of parenthood was typically assumed to attach at conception but could be revoked for sufficient cause. The practical reality was quite different. Abortion law in practice prevented parental obligation from attaching until an arbitrary point in time. “Sufficient cause” was drawn broad enough to cover any circumstance. The system worked so long as no one brought forth a case that would undermine the initial assumption. That’s why gender-selective abortion is so sensitive. It exposes the ruse of “sufficient cause.”

    So Pro-Abortionists have a problem. What would you do with a woman who requested an abortion when she didn’t possess sufficient cause? Do you compel her to carry the baby to term? Do you prevent her from seeking an abortion for any other cause? Do you let her keep the baby if she does give birth? None of these questions were ever supposed to be asked let alone answered. There was never supposed to be a case of insufficient cause except in theoretical terms.

    But there is now. And you see how they react to it.

    • Albert

      “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” – Colonel Gaddafi.

      Now why would a mere 50 million Muslims raise this prospect, I wonder? Of course, ironically, Muslims are probably over-represented in gender specific abortion. But that doesn’t matter – Islam is spread peacefully by non-Muslim women marrying Muslim men.

      • The Explorer

        I was under the impression that he’d said something about “the wombs of our women” as the great Muslim weapon, but I may have been mixing him up with someone else. Certainly, somebody said it in relation to Europe’s future.

        • bluedog

          You’re thinking of Putin’s distant cousin Erdogan, Sultan of Turkey.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you.

  • ” … the sex of the baby in the womb cannot be considered a risk to the mental or physical health of the mother, and so justifiable grounds for termination.”
    Abortionists argue that pregnancy carries physical and mental risks on there own, greater than not being pregnant … duh … and this ‘fact’ alone justifies abortion.
    “Being the ‘wrong sex’ and growing up to present the ‘wrong gender’ ought not to be a reason to kill a healthy developing baby in the womb.”
    Archbishop, you are falling behind the times. You should know that ‘modern science’ now says ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are socially imposed binary concepts and we can now choose which to be. Maleness and femaleness, genetically, exists on a spectrum. Added to which there are no less than 50 ‘genders’. Chemicals and the surgeons knife can refashion your chosen ‘gender’ to your body. You can choose to be a man or a woman and all in between and you can also choose your sexual preference. Oh, the sheer variety and diversity of it all.
    Ergo, since ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ can be changed, since maleness and femaleness are fluid and open to human choice. There is no need for abortions on the basis of ‘son-preference’ (how they twist words when they mean murdering girls). Now, all we have to do is ‘educate’ those communities who are still in the dark and retain the old fashioned belief God created male and female and that boys should grow up to be men and girls to be women.

    • The Explorer

      When a man, too, can have a baby, courtesy of an artificial womb, abortion won’t be a woman’s choice issue.

      • Equality demands it.

        • CliveM

          Please no! Inequality is our natural state:

          It would move from could to must!!

  • CliveM

    Of all the asinine reasons for opposing this Bill, surely the worst comes from the TUC. “Dividing Communities”!

    Is there a single comment that better reveals the moral vacuum at the heart of our society?
    Can anyone think of a weaker reason to defend the indefensible? This confirms what we all know. There are no boundaries to our abortion laws and at far as the proponents of abortion are concerned none will be allowed.

    If girls aren’t to be protected who? Can any reason now be off limits?

    • Phil R

      I agree Clive. It just goes to show how far the TUC has moved away from the values of those that set it up

      • CliveM

        I can’t help but wonder if community division is the issue, when will the TUC call on the Govt to give the same community the right to vote on whether to allow a pregnant to continue?

        It is the logic of the position.

  • Dreadnaught

    Given the propensity for first cousin marriages among Asians in Britain abortions within this group by proportion is lower than the mean average. Figures representing the financial and resource burden on the NHS and Social Services on the other hand, in catering for severely malformed or disabled children is seldom, if ever published. *Bradford alone, has three times the national rate among children for disabilities including deafness and blindness. In the ancestral homelands the situation is worse.

    Killings of new-born babies have been on the rise in Pakistan, corresponding to an increase in poverty across the country. More than 1,000 infants, mostly girls, have been killed or abandoned to die in Pakistan in 2009 according to a Pakistani charity organization.

    The Edhi Foundation found 1,210 dead babies in 2010. Many more are abandoned and left at the doorsteps of mosques. As a result, Edhi centres feature signs “Do not murder, lay them here.” Though female infanticide is punishable by life in prison, such crimes are rarely prosecuted’.

    These figures do not, for obvious reasons take into account the ‘unfound’. In my opinion there is a humanitarian case for abortion in limited circumstances in the UK in preference to this alternative.

    *http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394119/Its-time-confront-taboo-First-cousin-marriages-Muslim-communities-putting-hundreds-children-risk.html

    • carl jacobs

      there is a humanitarian case for abortion in limited circumstances

      And that case would be what? “Kill them quietly and efficiently instead of violently and brutally?” What you should see in your argument is the close connection between abortion and infanticide.

      • Dreadnaught

        Up to the end of the first trimester – in the first instance.

        “Kill them quietly and efficiently instead of violently and brutally?”
        Clearly words chosen to an appeal to the emotions rather than the point I made. Definition of words is a thread worthy of its own surely?

        • carl jacobs

          Dreadnaught

          The point that I perceived you had made was “Better they be aborted than left to die of exposure.” Did I misunderstand?

          • Dreadnaught

            Abortion in preference to giving birth to malformed children was my point Carl – I don’t know in what state of health the children that were left out to die was or their gender.

          • carl jacobs

            Dreadnaught

            But it’s not a given that a malformed child should be killed after birth. People with disabilities can lead fulfilling lives. So why should abortion be the humane preference to birth? It seemed to me you were saying that certain cultures would kill malformed children and so it would be more humane to abort them. Hence my comment. Abortion and infanticide become vehicles to achieve the same outcome.

          • Dreadnaught

            Of course its not a given, whatever that means; It is a question of degree surely. Having a clubbed foot for instance is disabling to a degree but not the same as being born with two heads now is it?
            It seemed to me you were saying that certain cultures would kill malformed children and so it would be more humane to abort them.

            That they do and will go on doing while inbreeding is the accepted practice.

          • carl jacobs

            No, it’s not a matter of degree. If it is more humane to abort children for certain birth defects, then it follows that infanticide is the humane course of action for children who are born with those birth defects. The intent in both cases is the same.

          • Dreadnaught

            Once again your argument is down to word definition; in this case ‘humane’. I can wring no more from this line of debate.

  • Linus

    Whatever the law says, if a reliable in-utero test for predicting sexuality is ever developed, you can be sure a lot of fetuses with a high probability of developing into gay children will be terminated.

    Many homophobes would rather have no child at all than a gay child.

    You can argue about the rights and wrongs, but what is very clear is that whenever a new technology allows us to know more about a developing fetus, its chances of gestating to full term get slimmer and slimmer. Whether it’s gay, or female, or afflicted with some kind of disease or condition, if there’s something about it that its parents object to, it doesn’t stand much of a chance no matter what the law says.

    Sex-selective abortions have been happening ever since sonogram technology was developed. Knowledge enables choice and some people won’t let the law stand in the way of what they want – or don’t want.

    I certainly hope that a sexual orientation test for fetuses is never developed. But if it is then in a few generations time there will be few gay people left in the world, no matter what pious laws are introduced to make “gaybortion” illegal.

    • sarky

      Just think Linus if a test is developed, at least it will prove to some people that being gay is not a lifestyle choice, but who you are.
      However, I agree with you that it will bring “gaybortion”, which in turn will make the world a very boring place.

      • DanJ0

        Will no-one think of the soft furnishings?!!1!

        • The Explorer

          Those for whom it’s a priority tend not to have kids or pets.

        • sarky

          I think my Mrs will keep the soft furnishing suppliers going by herself.

      • carl jacobs

        Homosexuality is a behavior. We don’t have the first clue what it means to choose a behavior let alone associate the choice with biological determinism. In any case, genetics is never an excuse for behavior. You are not the sum total of your genes. You are expected to choose right behavior no matter what your genes say. That’s why the pedophile would get chucked into jail even if there was a pedo gene.

        • The Explorer

          Unless there were a change of viewpoint about what constituted right behaviour.

          • DanJ0

            As long as people view children as being harmed by adults trying to have sex with them, the rightness or wrongness of paedophilic behaviour is obvious. Luckily for me, people recognise that homosexual behaviour is inherently harmless to others so rightness or wrongness doesn’t come into it. At the end of the day, it comes down to whether homosexual human beings should abstain from sex for life simply so that a bunch of religious misfits can feel more comfortable with the world. The answer to that is obvious to normal people.

          • The Explorer

            NAMBLA would abolish the age of consent altogether. Fortunately, it’s a minority view.

          • DanJ0

            It’s a minority view because most people recognise that children are usually harmed by paedophilic behaviour.

          • Phil R

            Having an opposing viewpoint is not homophobic.

          • DanJ0

            Phil, you’re a rampant homophobe with a demonstrably poor education. The blog owner doesn’t appear to be a homophobe despite having some opposing views to me on the subject. The Roman Catholic Church as an institution isn’t homophobic either with its well published position on human sexuality. But you very clearly are homophobic [1], as are a number of others down here. Trying to hide behind “an opposing viewpoint” won’t work for you. Man up. Admit that you just hate queers, and be done with it. It’s naught to do with religion for you.

            [1] In the colloquial sense of the word.

          • Phil R

            It is amazing with you how soon the conversation gets away from the substance of any argument to attack me personally.

            The facts are

            1. I have friends who are homosexual (gay) They are still friends even though they know my views.

            2. You prefer to attack the person rather than the argument. You see it as good debating technique to deflect away from the issue. I see it as a character flaw.

            3. Lesbians I would say instinctively hate me. They seem to hate me mostly, without me even saying anything. My wife describes me as walking red rag for Lesbians.

          • DanJ0

            I bet the Inspector tells people he has black friends too.

          • Phil R

            They are not dinner party friends. However, we have worked together on projects and over the years. Also both have asked for my help on other issues. Which I have happily given as a friend.

          • Phil R

            It is funny that homosexuality does not do any harm. This is not the view emerging from children of same sex parents especially girls bought up by gay men.

            There is also the issue of far more convicted pedophiles self identifying as homosexual than the percentages of homosexuals in society would suggest.

          • sarky

            Did you read that in the ‘daily bigot’?

          • DanJ0

            He gets most of his homophobic crap from American religious websites with a conservative / right-wing bias.

          • DanJ0

            So, if I don’t have children and a same-sex partner at the same time then is it okay for a partner and I to have a homosexual relationship as far as harm goes?

          • Phil R

            If the alternative is looking for this sort of relationship with those that do not want it or are not mature enough to know.

          • “As long as people view children as being harmed by adults trying to have sex with them, the rightness or wrongness of paedophilic behaviour is obvious.”

            Terms like “rightness” and “wrongness” are cultural, as your qualifier testifies: “as long as people view” paedophilia as “harmful” – another social constructed term.

            “Luckily for me, people recognise that homosexual behaviour is inherently harmless to others so rightness or wrongness doesn’t come into it.”

            This view is relatively recent and only came about in the 1960’s because homosexuality was viewed then as a disability that should be viewed sympathetically. It was anticipated decriminalising the behaviour would result in such men and women quietly and discreetly acting out what was seen as an affliction.

            “At the end of the day, it comes down to whether homosexual human beings should abstain from sex for life simply so that a bunch of religious misfits can feel more comfortable with the world. The answer to that is obvious to normal people.”

            Well, no. It’s about the status of acting on the desire and how society should regard that. If you reject the teachings of any faith, or all of them, that’s your business. What religious people object to is the normalisation of what is seen to be a moral evil and its imposition on children, as well as the claim it has equivalence to marriage between men and female.

        • sarky

          But we don’t chuck people with mental illness into jail if they commit crime, they go to securehospitals as it is understood that they are unable to choose right and wrong.

          • carl jacobs

            And what has that to do with anything. Pedophilia isn’t a mental illness. The point is that no one would care if pedophilia was genetic in origin. A pedophile would still be expected to avoid acting on the desire no matter its source. He would still be punished if he refused.

            Genetic predisposition is no excuse.

      • DanJ0

        Some Christians are very keen for it not to be a genetic thing, or for it not to be something which happens in the womb. Rather, they want it to be a thing of choice in itself so that they can apply their own version of morality to it. It’s warping the world to suit their beliefs. And it’s evil after a fashion.

        • sarky

          Exactly, their whole world view would have to change, because ‘god don’t make mistakes’

        • Inspector General

          One can see the attraction for therapy to keep the homosexual condition from overrunning someone’s life, as it has in yours, but as for a cure, then you are quite correct. There isn’t one, in my not so humble…

          • DanJ0

            Inspector, you can hardly call your overuse of alcohol as “therapy” even if it does lower your testosterone levels and raises your estrogen levels. You’d be better to just accept your sexuality, at least your nads won’t atrophie that way.

          • Inspector General

            Daily use, one will have you know, daily use. If you can construe ‘overuse’ out of that, then good old puritan England lives on. Fancy that eh, DanJ0 still under a Christian influence, albeit madcap, after all…

    • The Explorer

      Two responses about what you’ve said – good thoughts, by the way! – occur to me.
      1. “Something about it that its parents object to.” What if there’s something about it that the State objects to; although the parents don’t? Could the wishes of the State override the wishes of the parents?
      2. Suppose they could develop a test for predicting the probability of religious belief. Would there be compulsory religobortion by a secular state?

      • sarky

        If there is a ‘christianity’ gene, it seems to have started losing its potency about 40 years ago and is barely passed on at all these days!

        • The Explorer

          I did say religobortion, not christobortion. A western secular state’s future fight is likely to be with Islam,
          Christianity would, in any case, agree with you that Christianity is not inherited; it has to be chosen. The only thing passed on is original sin. (Unless you’re Philip Larkin, in which case the only thing passed on is human misery: the solution for which is not to have children. But, then. Larkin was an atheist who faced unflinchingly the implications of his world view.)

        • Dominic Stockford

          Unless you’re in Southern Africa, or South America, or many parts of Asia…

          • sarky

            Give it time!

    • carl jacobs

      if there’s something about it that its parents object to, it doesn’t stand much of a chance no matter what the law says

      That is the intent (if unspoken intent) of the Law. You got what you wanted. Why complain when the Law acts as intended? Although it’s funny that no one seemed concerned about aborting classes of people out of existence when it was just Downs Syndrome children being aborted.

      • Dominic Stockford

        There is an irony that the ‘class’ of people being aborted out of existence will be the female ‘class’. They keep telling us that they don’t need men. They’ll soon find out that men are, after all, their protectors!

    • DanJ0

      But any remaining gay people can just create some new gay people in schools simply by teaching heterosexual adolescents about the existence of homosexuality. Or so we’re told by some people, and typically Christian of a certain type.

      • “Today, a young person who finds himself attracted to the same sex is automatically a certain sort of person. He has a label, an identifier, a state of being, a category into which he fits—all courtesy of the culture around us.

        Our world’s language of sexual orientation is a pernicious trap: the boy who even has a passing attraction to another boy now has likely lost the freedom to view himself as he truly is: a boy who is the same sort of boy as all other boys that came before him. Rather, he will likely question his “sexual identity,” or wonder about his “sexual orientation” since the world tells him that if he’s attracted to another boy, he is necessarily—and by definition—something other than “straight.”

        The dividing line of sexuality is no longer male and female. It is “straight” and “something not straight’’ where that “something” is whatever a mind might imagine.”

        http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/gay-just-another-adjective

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          Although enlightenment has not prevailed everywhere by any means, we are undeniably on the way there. It is increasingly becoming the case that the boy who has even a persistent sexual attraction to another boy now has the freedom to view himself as he truly is: a boy who is the same sort of boy as all other boys that came before him, and whose attraction to another boy is a mere detail which makes not the slightest difference to that fact. What the world is rightly telling him is that if he eventually turns out to be one of the “straight” majority, that is absolutely fine, and that if he eventually turns out to be gay, that too is absolutely fine, so he has no need to make his adolescent years hideous by wasting them worrying about his sexual orientation, much less “struggling” with it.

          He also realises, if he has a modicum of intelligence, that his sexual identity, which is male, and his sexual orientation, i.e. the sex of anyone to whom he is sexually attracted, are two different things, and that the latter does not in any way affect the former.

          • Jack posted this comment above the one you have responded to:

            Children and adolescents are confused about all sorts of issues – especially sex.

            “I was recently speaking with a 24 year old man about his attractions to men. He told me he first realized these attractions when he was around twelve or thirteen and it was then that he realized he must be gay.

            After listening to his story I asked him a question. “Once you realized that you were attracted to other guys, did you ever have the freedom to consider yourself as not being gay?”

            He reflected for a moment, and said, “No. You know, I really didn’t.”

            Contrast (this) recognition with a conversation I recently had with a woman who came of age in the 1950s. She recalled a time in adolescence when she had a close attachment to one of her female friends. The strong feelings of affection between them led for a time to sexual experiences between them.

            Unlike ….. my 24-year-old friend, this woman had no concept or awareness of the category of a “gay” person, or of “being a lesbian” or a “bisexual.” Her encounter with her friend didn’t cause her to think of herself as a different sort of woman than every other woman who had ever lived because she was fortunate to live in a world that still believed that the only sexual division that existed was the line separating men from women.

            Alas, the world has since been remade.”

            http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/gay-just-another-adjective

            So you are isolating adolescent confusion and the impact of prevailing culture when you say: “He also realises, if he has a modicum of intelligence, that his sexual identity, which is male, and his sexual orientation, i.e. the sex of anyone to whom he is sexually attracted, are two different things, and that the latter does not in any way affect the former.”

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            “Once you realized that you were attracted to other guys, did you ever have the freedom to consider yourself as not being gay?”

            “No. You know, I really didn’t.”

            That sounds disturbing, doesn’t it? Yes, of course it does; it’s meant to. But there is a lot wrong with it. The question is unsatisfactory to start with, since its precise meaning is unclear. Furthermore, it is a “Have you stopped beating your wife” type of question. If you answer “yes”, your reply is likely to be seized on to “prove” that you must have chosen your sexual orientation, which you know to be a lie. If you answer “no”, that is likely to be interpreted to mean either that considering yourself gay must have been what made you continue to be attracted to other guys and stopped you from being sexually attracted to girls, or that you did in fact develop heterosexual attractions but fought against them and somehow succeeded in exterminating them for the sake of clinging to the “gay” label, notions which are equally divorced from reality.

            So a negative answer, without any further explanation of either the question or the answer, tells us nothing of any significance. If you talked to a 24 year old man about his attractions to women, you could ask him “Once you realized that you were attracted to women, did you ever have the freedom to consider yourself as not being heterosexual, ‘straight’ or ‘normal’?” Assuming that you could get him to take the question seriously – someone who is in the sexual majority is far less likely ever to have wondered how exactly this came about or to care about whether he ever had the freedom to consider himself otherwise – his answer would almost certainly be “no”. The argument that that was how he came to be and remained heterosexual would be just as ridiculous.

            Sexual identity (male or female) and sexual orientation (sexual attraction to people of one sex or the other, or both) are two different things. “Adolescent confusion and the impact of prevailing culture” have no bearing on that. I stand by the rest of what I wrote above.

          • “Adolescent confusion and the impact of prevailing culture” have no bearing on that.”

            This is where we differ then. The underlying causes of homosexuality are unlikely to be genetic, though prenatal factors may play some part. Early social and psychological factors are more likely to be significantly causative in cognition.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            We could discuss that till the cows come home, but it would not be particularly fruitful, since no matter what you, I or anyone else may believe, surmise, or feel inclined to think likely, the underlying causes of homosexuality are at present unknown. Just like the underlying causes of heterosexuality, in fact.

          • DanJ0

            “Just like the underlying causes of heterosexuality, in fact.”

            Well, except that it’s undeniable that physically we’re heterosexual and one might expect the mind to follow the body as a general rule. That’s not to say that sexual orientation is a choice, either moment by moment or as a result of poor choices over time, as some Christians, typically from the Calvinist or Baptist stable, like to claim. We know that a foetus is both sexes physically during its development for a little while, and that the brain is developing at the same time. Personally, I think that’s the most likely area of cause for at least one vector to homosexuality.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Yes, the human race is physically heterosexual in the sense that we are of two different sexes, male and female; that is the meaning of the prefix “hetero”, which comes from the Greek word for “other” or “different”; and we have learnt much about what it is that makes each of us biologically male or female. What we still do not know, however, is precisely what it is that gives the overwhelming majority of us a heterosexual ORIENTATION, i.e. causes sexual attraction to people of the other sex. There must presumably be some mechanism or other, but whatever it is, it has not to date been discovered.

            We don’t fret about that, however. We know that heterosexuality, no matter what its underlying causes may be, is by far the majority orientation, and we simply and sensibly accept it as a plain fact of life. Homosexuality is very much a minority orientation, and its underlying causes, despite any number of theories ranging from prima facie plausible to utterly cranky, likewise remain so far unknown. There is nothing to prevent us from accepting it with similar equanimity, and it is good that ever more people are doing so.

          • DanJ0

            Excellent.

      • Linus

        Shhh! I didn’t meet my recruitment target for 2014 so I’m trying to make up for it by doing at least 200% of my online advocacy goal. But if you keep on blabbing I’ll have the Gaystapo on my back quicker than Michelle can adjust that silk scarf over those deltoids…

        Paris is a cushy posting and if I can just cover up that débâcle in the under 18 rugby team’s changing rooms at the Stade de France … I mean, come on! Who knew that hulking great trans fille de joie really was a woman after all? Some of my most promising potential converts were lost to the cause that night and my recruitment target blown all to bits. So do me a favour and put a sock in it. If I’m demoted to the UK, I’ll come looking for you!!!

        • Phil R

          Laugh

          However, many gays have written that teenagers especially can be “turned”.

          • Children and adolescents are confused about all sorts of issues – especially sex.

            I was recently speaking with a 24 year old man about his attractions to men. He told me he first realized these attractions when he was around twelve or thirteen and it was then that he realized he must be gay.

            After listening to his story I asked him a question. “Once you realized that you were attracted to other guys, did you ever have the freedom to consider yourself as not being gay?”

            He reflected for a moment, and said, “No. You know, I really didn’t.”

            Contrast (this) recognition with a conversation I recently had with a woman who came of age in the 1950s. She recalled a time in adolescence when she had a close attachment to one of her female friends. The strong feelings of affection between them led for a time to sexual experiences between them.

            Unlike ….. my 24-year-old friend, this woman had no concept or awareness of the category of a “gay” person, or of “being a lesbian” or a “bisexual.” Her encounter with her friend didn’t cause her to think of herself as a different sort of woman than every other woman who had ever lived because she was fortunate to live in a world that still believed that the only sexual division that existed was the line separating men from women.

            Alas, the world has since been remade.”

            http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/gay-just-another-adjective

      • CliveM

        In all seriousness like most nature/nurture arguments it’s probably a mixture of both. There will be some Gay men at an extreme end of a spectrum that could never be anything but gay. But some in the middle of the spectrum that nurture can influence.
        I remember reading years back that some studies had suggested that men who had over domineering mothers and timid fathers were more likely to be Gay.

        • DanJ0

          That sounds like Freud 100 years ago.

          • Raw nerve?

          • CliveM

            Bad example . Did a bit of checking and relates to discredited research of 20 years ago.

          • DanJ0

            Indeed.

            I wasn’t being rude by referring to Freud either, it’s basically his idea from 100 years ago.

          • CliveM

            Understood. I still stand by my general point however!

            The relationship between nature and nurture is complicated and the exact mix varies from person to person.

          • DanJ0

            I’d be quite surprised if nurture had much to do with it at its core. However, I’ve said many times here that I think there are multiple vectors to homosexuality. I also think sexuality falls on a spectrum for lots of people, and one might inhibit bisexuality oneself in one case but ‘nurture’ it in another. I’m most definitely not bisexual myself. There’s never been a choice that I’ve been aware of.

    • There is in all probability no homosexual gene, Linus, unless it occurs as some genetic aberration like intersex children. The closest science is coming to a pre-birth ‘understanding’ concerns hormones in the womb. A treatment may become available for this.

      • Linus

        You use the word “aberration” in order to pathologize what you don’t like by labeling it as a disorder or sickness. It’s to be expected of a relic from another time. The fascism that ruled so much of the world round about when you were born had its roots in an industrial society’s preference for authority, conformity and sameness. Good little factory workers all obey orders unquestioningly and look and act exactly the same, don’t they?

        In a post-industrial world we have less use for conformist attitudes. So what you see as valueless “aberrations” are now regarded as normal and natural variations. We’re no longer subject to the hive mentality of Sad Jack’s formative years, which is sad for him because a drone can only ever be a drone, so he’s just not equipped to be, or even to understand, any other way of being.

        As the drone generation fades away, its attitudes are fading with it. But its last representatives will keep on buzzing their disapproval of anything that departs from their vanilla, cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all script. That’s all they know how to do.

        • Sooo sensitive, Linus.

          Aberration:

          (1) A deviation or irregularity. For example, a chromosome aberration is a deviation from the normal chromosome number or the normal chromosome structure. In this sense, aberration is also synonymous with deflection, departure, divergence, diversion, turning.

          (2) A mental aberration is a significant deviation from normal mental activity. In this sense, aberration is synonymous with mental derangement, mental illness, psychopathy.

          http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2087
          You assume Jack meant two when he was referring a genetic deviation/irregularity. Why was that?

          • Linus

            Sad Jack chooses his words very carefully and always with the intention of insulting, denigrating and pathologizing whatever he doesn’t like. He wants to provoke an angry reaction so he can further insult, denigrate and pathologize his targets by intimating that they’re not in control of their emotions.

            One can only assume that he doesn’t think very highly of his god after that disgraceful incident in the temple. That Jesus, he’s just sooo sensitive, isn’t he? And what about Sad Jack himself? Some of his rants and outbursts here would give anyone a run for their money in the anger stakes.

            But of course Sad Jack’s anger is righteous, isn’t it? It’s all part of his religious delusion that places him at the center of the universe and justifies everything he does, while demonizing anyone who disagrees with him.

            Keep on using those insulting terms when referring to those you hate, sad Jack. And keep on twisting their responses into fake psychological conditions. Your manipulative, dishonorable and malevolent nature becomes clearer to see with every word you write.

          • Such hyper sensitivity over the use of a common noun in its scientific sense, and such defensiveness and passive aggression. Anyone one think Jack struck a nerve.

          • Linus

            Describing your own reactions is very revealing, Sad Jack. What nerve is it that I’ve struck?

          • Linus, just about every one of Jack’s nerves. It’s a generic experience.

            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-t8R2HIZuRFE/UWjxqvN0jHI/AAAAAAAAC-o/NVSfRAP1Hjw/s1600/14037_347635785348536_7166241_n.jpg

  • Phil R

    Never mind I am sure that society will solve the problem of a lack of girls in the traditional manner.

    I lived and worked in Africa where 100 or more years before a Zulu General fell out with the King and as he was to powerful to liquidate so his Impi was expelled.

    That was a recipe for “instability”. 600 or so guys, no women.

    Two years later, now in Malawi, each of the 600 now has at least two girls. They settle on the best land and when they got bored they raid a few more villages, sell the men to the Arabs as slaves and get themselves some new girls.

    The fun lasted nearly 50 years and was only stopped by the British.

    • The Explorer

      It’s like the African solution if your bicycle is stolen: steal someone else’s.

      • sarky

        I once prayed to god for a new bike. Then I realised it didnt work like that, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness!

      • Phil R

        The Zulus faced virtually no opposition and seemed to have a hell of a good time.

        Something to be said for falling out with your Government it seems!

      • bluedog

        Or the recipe for a Hungarian omelette: first steal two eggs.

  • carl jacobs

    I’m not surprised doctors are wary of this amendment. They don’t want to get caught in the crossfire. Ostensibly doctors have to sign off. In reality, the woman is supposed to privately evaluate the criteria herself, and no one is supposed to question her evaluation. In practice, that means the woman decides she does not want the responsibility and the Doctors rubberstamp the decision. Their “gatekeeper” roll is purely hypothetical.

    This amendment would depend upon doctors to identify and refuse a certain type of abortion. I am sure they are worried about legal liability if statistics show they are not performing that roll. And who can blame them? They aren’t supposed to question the woman’s reason. But what if the women lie and 80% of the abortions he performs are female? That could be a problem for him.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Role. Sorry. Just had to point it out. Sorry

      • carl jacobs

        I have no idea what you are talking about, Dominic. Why, look right in the post above. “Role” is spelled properly.

        [innocent face]

        • “Their “gatekeeper” roll is purely hypothetical.”

          “I am sure they are worried about legal liability if statistics show they are not performing that roll.”

          Ahem ……… forgot to save the edit, Carl.
          Or are you being ironic? Yes, it must be that.

          • carl jacobs

            What edit? There wasn’t any edit? What are you implying, Jack?

          • Agreed, there was no completed edit. You must be developing dyslexia if you maintain “roll” can be read as “role”. Then again, it may be that you only see what you want to see.

          • carl jacobs

            Do you see the word “roll” in that post?

          • No. Profuse apologies, Carl. You are right – as always.
            Happy Jack’s copy and paste facility must be malfunctioning. That must be it. North has infected Jack’s computer too.

          • carl jacobs

            I thought so. I’d hate to think you were accusing me of editing a post even as I denied I edited the post. That would be unethical.

          • Goodness, Jack just heard a cock crow and it’s not yet midnight.
            What was that Carl? Jack was distracted.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Neither have I any idea what I am talking about most of the time…

  • The Explorer

    Suppose scientists discovered a gene to identify future politicians. Unfortunately, existing politicians would never vote for the obvious solution.
    Victorian phrenology thought I could identify the criminal type. Suppose we did actually identify a criminal gene, but by that time criminals were in charge of the programme. Instead of taking the opportunity to eliminate crime they might opt for more of themselves.

    • CliveM

      They would be in a bind. Would they want the competition?

  • Inspector General

    Watch out Cranmer, there are few groups around who are more clued up on genetics than militant homosexuality. What with boys who want to be girls, amongst other of that kind of business. They’re also pretty damned hot on viruses too, and virus manipulation, if such a thing were possible, to mitigate Mother Nature’s rather homophobic attitude to the wilder aspects of their shenanigans by cursing them with what is, and most likely probably always will be, the death sentence known as HIV. If left untreated, that is. Now, you’ve got the blighters standing to attention like alerted meerkats by mentioning the unmentionable, the elusive ‘gay gene’. The Dark Matter of that gay universe, no less.

    One’s extensive research on the subject concludes there is nothing haphazard about homosexuality. Why should there be. Nothing else in the developing embryo is as that, apparently, so something concrete exists to produce the condition. The Inspector puts his money on brain structure. And if that really is the case, then it’s genitival. That would explain why it is commonplace in some family trees, but absent in others. And there is scope there to predict it in an embryo. When we find out how to, and we will. Let us be in no doubt about that.

    Here’s the difficult bit for them. They are NOT going to accept termination on grounds of sexuality. Not at all. The very idea! Yet, it is not just them who live in Victimville. They are extremely good friends with their neighbours, the feminists. Like the gay community, with their wants and whims which must always be obeyed otherwise we’re all nasty homophobic bigots, the feminists too must always have their own way, and privilege number one is the right to destroy any child they are carrying. WHATEVER THE REASON. It’s a woman’s right, blah,blah,blah…

    Can you now see the mischief you are making…

  • Inspector General

    In some parts of the world, little girls are wrapped in explosives and sent out to their destiny with an aerial sticking out behind. Anybody else thinking what the Inspector is thinking…

    Not here in England, surely not. But could this be the ultimate in the rejection of multiculturalism? What finally puts it out of business.

    Maybe it would be worth it, if only never to hear a political fool extol the wonderful diversity the beast once promised…

  • Inspector General

    But the ‘gay gene’, should it ever be discovered, would be a certain and sure justification for foetal termination among some communities (best not to say which).

    No need to allude to ‘communities’ old fellow. It will be everywhere. The Inspector works with women who have opted to restrict the size of their family not even to two children but to one child. It must be very common out there. Such is the desire to maintain the pre natal standard of living they enjoyed with their husband. Who in their right mind is going to bother with all the problems a homosexual child will bring then? And probably no grandchildren either. One dislikes using that ghastly Americanism ‘no brainer’, but could you find a better example of one?

  • Dominic Stockford

    Hmmm. Been thinking. Call them what they are. The Unions that is. Who want this bill voted down.

    Evil.

    • Phil R

      I just cannot believe that this is

      1. a union issue

      2. something that all unions in the TUC have sat down and agreed a position on.

      3. there is something very unrepresentative happening here.

      You would have to call the British Medical Association Evil also it seems.

      (see stephen Hayes below)

      • CliveM

        Regards point 3. When have the Unions EVER been representative?

      • Inspector General

        Once read the NHS union ‘Unison’ publication while a nurse friend spent 90 minutes dolling herself up. It seemed to be a miscellany of the various ‘issues’ that unhappy people have. Including wimmin who are somewhat annoyed they were born as such.

  • Surely gender selective abortion can be made illegal, and enforced by
    passing a law that parents can only obtain the sex of the baby in the
    womb after 24 weeks when it is considered too late and is illegal to
    abort it unless there are special circumstances such as mother would
    die or severe disability of the baby.

    • Inspector General

      Society is crumbling Marie. Vote UKIP, dear thing.

      • Inspector, all your wise and sobering words of comfort to the afflicted have been deleted from PN. Have you been blocked? You brightened up the site for a while and Jack enjoyed your exploits. It was the loon, one suspects. Poor Andre will be distraught.

        • Inspector General

          Thanks for that Jack. That will be the evil North’s doing, probably contacting them direct. Still, one’s mission was not a complete failure. It did show that many are beyond saving, or reason come to that. All fits in with what Christ told us – there will be a mass binning of that of the congregation who are against him…

          • What’s so strange is that you never really said anything offensive or homophobic – just humour. It was the chap you mentioned. Recall how he threatened you and PN with legal action if you were not barred.

          • Inspector General

            They want ‘equality’ you know. But when it comes to outsiders mingling with them, that’s too much equality and they don’t want that. One wonders in Alan Wilson will read this. Perhaps he might consider he’s on a path to nowhere with them…

          • Allan – note the spelling – Wilson enjoys the accolades and invites to awards and such like. Helps the CV you know in the popularity stakes.

            Of course, it is an advantage when meeting with ‘natives’ to support their strange beliefs and accept them as perfectly consistent with the Gospel. Imagine if he were converting head hunters.

        • The Explorer

          Andre can always visit here, and be more welcome than, as I take it, the Inspector was over there. Are you able to explain about the loon, or would it take too long to contextualise?

          • Umm … just follow the Inspector’s link to his most recent postings. All will become clear.

      • Oh! I intend to no worries there Inspector, but sadly it wont make a
        difference. People where I am would vote for a donkey if it had a
        Labour badge on it so Labour are parachting Stephen Kinnock in as the new candidate. He lives in Davos and Copenhagen and is obviously keen to get into Westminster to cash in on the gravy train.

        • Inspector General

          Yes, you live in dole wallah land, unfortunately. The eternal outstretched hand. Great fortunes are made these days, not from trading in the empire, but through politics…

  • Guest

    Hello. Religious nutters. Beheaded anyone today cause your GAWD says so

    You people are evil shits. And all in the name of your Christ that would spit on you because of your actions. You are no better than ISIS.

    Removed any rights from people today.. Planned to.

    That is what you lot do.

    And all in the name of your Christ.

    A character in fiction I respect. Shame you lot don’t.

    Just spiteful hateful people.

    PS. Its all a fiction.. Grow up.

    • The Explorer

      Welcome, Guest.
      You’ve spoken in generalisations; so we need to narrow things down a bit.
      1. Where does our God instruct us to behead people? Please be specific re chapter and verse.
      2. Christ spat to make a paste and heal the eyes of the blind man. I am unaware of any other instances of his spitting. Please show any instances that I may have missed.
      3. Please briefly outline your criteria for distinguishing between history and fiction.

    • Inspector General

      Ah, North, the bully. Come here to get a breath of fresh air have you. Can’t blame you for that. It was you who whined to Pink News, wasn’t it. Well, congratulations, your wish granted.

      Do call again, and bring your eternal rage with you. Don’t forget that now, will you…

      • The Explorer

        Thank you for clarifying the identity of this particular contributor. He/she seemed to come from nowhere, without reference to anything said on HG’s post, or on this thread.
        But now there is a context.

        • Pubcrawler

          When the comment first appeared it had the byline DT North, but as if by magic it was transformed to Guest about 10 minutes later. I’ve got the popcorn on standby.

          • Inspector General

            On Disqus, if you delete a comment, it stays, but your name becomes ‘Guest’

          • Pubcrawler

            Ah, the online equivalent of leaving something unpleasant on someone’s doorstep, ringing the bell and running away.

          • CliveM

            You’d think he’d have greater courage of his own convictions. After all how brave do you have to be to place a post using a pseudonym?

          • The Explorer

            Don’t hold your breath if this is the gentleman who, as the Inspector says, used to post as Bee El Zee Bub.
            No dialogue. Just the equivalent of a kid sticking his head over the garden wall, going “Nyah, nyah, nyah!”, and then running away.
            Unless he’s changed his tactics along with his name, he won’t be back for a while; and when he returns, it won’t be for meaningful conversation.

    • Inspector General

      One more thing North. Do come back in a day or two and check your greeting is still there. It will be. You see, for us Christians to know good, we must have bad to contrast against. That’s where YOU come in.
      Be seeing you…

    • carl jacobs

      The regulars on this blog whom you would count as allies – they know that what you just said is a lie. So all you have done is embarrass them and make an ass of yourself. A fine afternoon’s work. Congratulations.

      • Inspector General

        Make the most of North, Carl, you may never see such enduring hate again. He won’t be around forever, you know. Not with that much negativity. One day, it will overwhelm him, and he’ll do what he must for the peace he’ll never know on this earth.

    • Uncle Brian

      I suspect you may be misusing the adjective “hateful”. Are you sure you know what it means?

      • Inspector General

        Brian. Anyone who doesn’t cheer on the homosexual movement is known as hateful. Apparently, by not supporting their queer idea of the world, we’ve taken all their rights away.

      • The Explorer

        Uncle Brian,
        I suspect you aren’t going to get a response, so I shall attempt an answer on our guest’s behalf. He means two things: that we are filled with hatred, and that we are ourselves despicable and deserving of the hatred of others.

    • Hi guest

      Fiction or not, the ‘religious nuts’ of this blog are expressing their views because of a genuinely held conviction and belief in wanting to save lives: namely the lives of unborn babies, not destroy them…I’ve yet to encounter anyone on this blog who advocates beheading of those they oppose . So the comparison with IS, who DO slaughter people such as gays, Christians, fellow Muslims or anyone else who isn’t following their ideology is a silly one to say the least. Opposition to abortion on the grounds of gender may be many things, but evil is not an appropriate description. I can only conclude therefore that it is not the bloggers here who need to ‘grow up’ when commenting on what are life and death matters …

      • Well said Hannah. Long time no speak. Hope you and the ‘tribe’ are all fairing well. Love and greetings to you all. How’s David these days? And Louise?

    • Linus

      Actually, I believe the Judaeo-Christian God recommends stoning as the best, or at least the most frequent, form of capital punishment for disobeying his will.

      Christians and Jews part company as to whether such sentences should be carried out or commuted to life-long repentance with a hope of rehabilitation. But they all agree that their God has the right to punish us for our transgressions. Why? Because he’s God, he’s bigger than us, and at the end of the day, might is right.

      The really thorny question is do Christians have the right to mete out punishment on behalf of their God? The Bible is inconclusive on this point. On the one hand, Christ tells us to turn the other cheek and talks about he who is sinless being the only one who is fit to punish others for their misdeeds. On the other hand, the Church has never come out against capital punishment. Indeed throughout its history it’s never hesitated to hand over convicted criminals to the civil authorities to endure the worst kind of torture and execution.

      This last point is an important one. IS kills those who transgress its principles. The Christian Church does not. It’s quite happy to see them die. It just doesn’t want to do the deed itself.

      Which attitude is worse, I wonder?

      • The Explorer

        Who would you rather be punished by in 2015: IS or the Church?

  • Martin

    If the current law were actually enforced this would not be a problem. However it is not enforced and, aside from the corrupt acts of the doctors, the government are complicit in allowing the breaking of the law.

    BTW, there’s no such thing as sexuality, it’s just behaviour and if you could predict the behaviour of a child then maybe you’d want to kill those who would become mass murderers as well.

  • carl jacobs

    BBC reports the amendment was defeated.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31596968

    • Inspector General

      Thank you Carl. This has happened during a Conservative government, albeit in coalition. If Conservative support was failing, and we don’t know as yet but if that was the case, all you fellows must ask yourselves if you really are Conservatives. If you think you are, then you must be ‘New’ Conservatives. Our host is included in this search of the heart.

      • Defeated by 292 to 201 votes, Inspector. Spoken against by both the government and opposition Frontbench.

    • Disgraceful ………

      Reasons given in debate:

      – Abortion on the grounds of gender alone is already illegal.
      – Prevent women confiding in their doctor that they “feel under
      pressure” to abort their child because of its gender.
      – No evidence of a “systematic practice” of sex selective abortion in the UK, and it will stigmatise communities.
      – Have implications for existing abortion laws, as it would “confer personhood on the foetus”.
      – Would not address the causes of sex selective abortion.

      • carl jacobs

        Paraphrased:

        It’s already illegal, but stating that it is already illegal could have unintended consequences.

        How then do you know it it illegal, and why doesn’t its illegality already produce those unintended consequences? You can’t make this stuff up.

        • And it’s not an issue in certain communities but a change of law would prevent women (in those communities) saying they felt under pressure.

      • Absolutely disgraceful, and almost unbelievable. The power of the abortion industry is even greater than I had thought.
        Well, there is a duty for all of us. Before the election, we must find out the views of the candidates on this matter and vote accordingly.

        • Agreed. For Jack it’s the only question he asks. It says so much about a person. One should also check the sitting MP’s voting record.

          • “Have implications for existing abortion laws, as it would “confer personhood on the foetus”

            This is the one they daren’t let get out. All the other reasons pale by comparison. The instant any law actually defines the unborn child as a child, then the whole can of worms is ripped open.

          • CliveM

            There was a sad inevitability about this.

          • Anton

            Absolutely right Sister. That’s why they backed off suddenly from prosecuting a woman whose baby was born deformed because (medics said) the mother had drunk far too much alcohol throughout her pregnancy.

          • CHBrighton

            But a foetus is not a child. It is a foetus with the potential of becoming a child. What on earth is the point of forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies, or pregnancies where the foetus is unhealthy?

        • Linus

          Well that will set the cat among the pigeons, won’t it? A few hundred fundamentalist Christian votes spread out across the whole country could decide who your next government will be.

          Only they won’t. Abortion just isn’t an election issue. When measures like the one just defeated are discussed, they’re seen as peripheral to the main business of government. The principle of abortion on demand up to a certain time limit is widely accepted in society, even if the actual legislation contains all sorts of caveats and theoretical restrictions. They’re really just there to mollify the minority that staunchly opposes abortion without creating a serious obstacle for any woman who discovers she’s pregnant and wants to take steps to change that situation.

          By all means withhold your vote from candidates who support a woman’s right to choose. But it won’t make any difference to the outcome of the next (or any other) election. There just aren’t enough of you to make that difference.

          • Well, not for the first time, you’re entirely wrong. There are certainly enough evangelical Christians to make a difference; the question is, will they vote at all, and if they do, will enough of them to make a difference forsake their usual party and vote for a candidate who will oppose gender-based abortion?

  • carl jacobs

    This amendment couldn’t create unintended consequences unless it changed something. If everything stays the same, then there is no driving force in the law to cause the change that would produce the unintended consequences. So the fear that this amendment would cause unintended consequence is a tacit admission that the law would change something. That something would be the explicit declaration that an abortion cannot be performed for specific reason X – in this case, simply because the unborn child is a girl.

    The criteria for “illegal abortions” are not stated. Theoretically, an abortion can only be performed for specifically allowed reasons. One may infer that any abortion not predicated upon such reasons would fall outside the law. Since gender selection is not an allowed reason, a pro-abortionist may say “That type of abortion is already illegal.” But the allowable reasons are broad and vague. No one was ever supposed to examine any particular abortion for conformance with the allowed reasons. This allowed the pro-Abortionist to talk out of both sides of its mouth. He could say that (in theory) only certain abortions would be allowed. In practice, he could establish abortion for any and every reason known to man. So, yes, gender-selective abortion could be considered illegal. But the law was never intended to be enforced. That’s why it never contained any specificity. The lack of specificity allowed any particular abortion to pass muster with the law.

    And then along comes Fiona Bruce with her very specific amendment. It it had passed, there would exist in law a specific instance of abortion that would fall outside the law. One case would not be shrouded in ambiguity and credible deniability. Doctors especially would have to watch out for it. No longer would any abortion automatically be given a legal pass. That is what would have changed. The law created a specific instance that would have to be enforced, and which the public would want enforced. By defeating the amendment, the status quo is maintained. Some abortions are illegal, but all abortions are allowed.

    • Carl, it is the women’s right to choose and the collection of cells is only a person if she decides not to kill him or her – or it.

  • The Explorer

    Did anyone seriously expect any other outcome?

    • CliveM

      No

  • Anton

    As with Hebdo and free speech, this issue reveals a split within secularism between the feminists and the multiculturalists. There is no consistency to who wins battles between two evils; it is abortion per se that is wrong.

    This legislation is being enacted because of disgust by our executive that present legislation which forbids but does not single out female foeticide is not being enacted in practice. How should Christian MPs vote; is voting for the bill in any way an endorsement of the forms of abortion it does not take aim at? I’d need to read the small print.

  • CliveM

    I have read on several occasions that the next global conflict will be started by the need for access to water.

    I’m now beginning to wonder if it will be the need for access to women that will initiate it.

    • The Explorer

      It’s been a recurring problem: think of the rape of the Sabine Women.

      • CliveM

        Yes I will admit I hadn’t thought of that example.

        Up to now the higher proportion of boys born has been counterbalanced by higher mortality rates and death by violence, typically war. That meant (usually) enough women to go round. Men are not dying at birth and in childhood in the same numbers and we have now added the problem of a form of female infanticide. This is going to create a serious gender imbalance.

        There are going to be bad times ahead.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Happy Jack quoted one unnamed MP as saying that there is no evidence of a “systematic practice” of sex selective abortion in the UK and that it will stigmatise communities.

    It should not be difficult to establish whether or systematic sex selective abortion is going on in particular communities. Our PC government and local government are always wanting to categorise people by ethnic origin. All they need to do in this case is compare the sex ratios of babies born to mothers of various ethnic backgrounds. Normally there will be a slight excess of males. If the excess turns out to be greater in certain “communities” then that would suggest that sex-selective abortion is going on and should be investigated further.

    As for “stigmatising communities” I suspect this argument is like the one that you should not say “Merry Christmas” in case it is offensive to non-Christians. Adherents of other religions in this country rarely object to the celebration of Christmas but aggressive secularists like to use the supposed sensitivities of followers of other religions, especially Islam, as an excuse to bash Christianity. In the same way they are using the supposed sensitivities of people from non-white backgrounds to disguise the fact that their opposition to the bill banning sex-selective abortion is really motivated by an aggressive form of feminism.

  • Royinsouthwest

    Perhaps I was too cynical in my message of 25 minutes ago when I cast doubt on the excuse of not stigmatising communities. After all, plenty of people in local government, the social services and the police thought it better to avoid stigmatising a particular community than prevent mass rape in Rotherham and certain other English cities. Our MPs obviously think along similar lines. Nobody can doubt their commitment to community cohesion so perhaps I owe them an apology?

  • CHBrighton

    Access to abortion needs, if anything, to be made easier, particularly in the first three months. If a woman does not wish to be pregnant, then she should have easy access to termination. No need for two doctors, no need for foetal abnormality and no need for life of the mother to be at risk. What on earth is the point of hoops?