I received a letter in the post a few days ago from a pro-life organization that I'm on the mailing list for. It's a useful thing to keep tabs on whats going behind the scenes, from people who have much more time than I do to be investigating legislation.
Apparently an MP introduced a private members bill to parliament that would have greatly restricted abortions. Now, it's worth pointing out that a private members bill generally has as much chance of becoming law as the shopping list I scrawled on the back of an old envelope last week. But I will always applaud anyone who stands up and says that killing babies is wrong. So, much kudos to Mr Lawrence Robertson (MP for Tewkesbury).
It was the government response to this proposal that I wanted to highlight. Essentially, the Minster of state for public health argued that fewer abortions would put the abortion industry in dire financial straits and mean the loss of many jobs.
At this point, many things might be going through your mind. I might make a comment along the lines of 'Ah, diddums, the poor people will have to go and make a living without mutilating tiny children', and you may well nod your head in agreement with my sarcasm.
But my mind fairly quickly went to a parallel that neatly illustrates the bizaare inversion of values in our modern, compassionate society.
These 'loss of jobs' arguments were put before the government when the ban on fox-hunting was proposed, and they came to absolutely nothing. Those big bad red-coated hunters were put soundly in their place because killing those cuddly-wuddly furry creatures is wrong. If people lose their jobs and rural people find themselves yet again misunderstood and playing second-fiddle to the townies, well, that's just too bad.
But lets compare the two villains of the piece, shall we?
Mr Russett-coated Renard may look all appealing, but he's probably just seen off next doors pet rabbit and the chickens in that farm down the road. He may well have overturned bins and strewn germ-laden rubbish about.
Tiny person, unseen, makes mum feel a bit sick as she grows. Wow. Nasty stuff.
Now, you may be of the opinion that fox-hunting was well out of order, and was right to be banned. I'm ok with you holding that opinion. But what kind of commentary is it that the government ignores the economic argument in favour of acknowledged vermin, and yet uses that same economic argument against unborn children?
8/21/2006
Foxes, or babies? Tough choice...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The answer is, of course, a sick society. Most leftists are opposed to the death penalty, the dispatching of men guilty of the deliberate, wolfish killing of man by man, yet in favour of abortion. And while abortionists can get new jobs in medicine, what's a hangman to do in Britain these days?
They are opposed to the loving corporal punishment of children by their parents, on the grounds that this is child abuse. But opposed to abortion.
I have a great deal of respect for Ann Widdecome, despite her Roman Catholicism, as she for one showed consistency on the issue of foxhunting.
Of course, abolishing the slave trade caused unemployment for seamen and slave trading companies, while banning the employment of children meant a financial loss for their parents, and diminished the productivity of Britain's factories. Should we have kept slavery legal and continued employing children.
To quote Lord Dynevor:
'Whatever the consequences, we must do what is right.'
Oh, and wasn't it a Private Member's Bill (introduced by David Steel) that legalised abortion in the first place?
yes, I think it was - but they are a very regular feature of life in the Commons, as I understand it, and need a groundswell of support, which means legwork and lobbying and so forth. Then there's the old chestnut of 'parliamentary time'. I get migraines trying to work it all out.
I found your blog somewhat by accident. Thanks for posting about the Private Member's Bill. We have a Private Member's Bill here in Canada, too, to ban late-term abortinos. Canada has zero abortion laws. No one has ever seriously suggested the abortion industry would lose money over restrictions. That's not an argument I've heard either in the US or Canada.
That is pretty warped.
It's difficult for a Private Member's Bill to pass, but not impossible. For example, the Bill allowing public access to council meetings was introduced by a Private member (one M. Thatcher). However, for a hard issue, there does have to be a groundswell of support or the agreement of the Whips to allow the Bill to pass all its stages.
I heard a testimony from an ex-abortionist, that the reason she opened a clinic was to become a millionaire.
I think she spoke on Jim Dobson's Focus on the Family.
It was quite enlightening, and sickening, to learn of the incredible profit made in killing babies. I had no idea until I heard this from this Christian siter's testimony.
Wow, that is quite unbelievable.
I have often wondered how many PETA fanatics are actually pro-choice.
Many PETA fanatics are pro choice. I have read statements to the effect that it would be better for the animals if we'd never been born.
We are the vermin.
Post a Comment