Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Advertising abortion and condoms on television

For the first time in almost 50 years of their history, the UK’s Advertising Codes are being reviewed simultaneously. This is also the first time a review of the broadcast Codes has been administered by a body other than an agency of Government. The aim of the Code Review is ‘to ensure that the Codes continue to be relevant and effective, now and into the future, for the benefit of consumers and advertisers’.

And what could be more relevant than the contemporary obsession with sex, sex and sex?

And so it is proposed that adverts for abortion should be allowed on TV and radio, and that pregnancy advice services that do not provide abortion should have to state this explicitly in their adverts.

Cranmer has a problem with this.

A few years back, the pro-abortion lobby and abortion providers like BPAS and Marie Stopes promoted an effort in Parliament to change the law to ‘protect’ pregnant women from pregnancy advice services that do not provide abortion. The pro-abortion groups were worried that they were ‘losing customers’ to pro-life agencies. However, the law was not changed. The pro-abortion lobby now wants the ASA’s Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice to change the code of practice both to allow abortion providers to advertise on TV and radio and to impose on anti-abortion groups a restriction similar to (but more dictatorial than) the unsuccessful parliamentary amendment.

The objective is to reduce the teenage pregnancy rate, which is the highest in Europe. It is curious that, at a time when all advertising for cigarettes and tobacco is banned in order to avoid promoting and propagating the habit, the move is towards permitting advertisements for abortion. If there is correlation between advertising and increased numbers smoking, how can there not be between advertising and increased numbers seeking abortion?

It is also proposed to permit advertisement for condoms.

Cranmer only has a problem with this if they are purposely screened around programmes aimed at young people and teenagers (and that includes most programmes up until about 10.00pm), which can only serve to promote promiscuity. After such a watershed, he has no problem with advertising condoms, for he is Anglican.

But advertising abortion is to draw favourable attention to murder. It is to describe the tortuous process in pleasant and attractive terms in order to influence women and girls of its benefits and to promote its merits above its demerits. Why otherwise would providers spend money promoting their services if they could not recoup their investment and profit further still?

The Broadcast Committee of the Advertising Standards Authority is conducting a consultation on its proposals until 19th June 2009. It will issue its conclusions in the Autumn. As part of the consultation, the Broadcasting committee is seeking the views of the general public. This means that the views of Cranmer’s readers and communicants will be taken into account.

After Friday, if you have not made your point, it will be assumed that you are either indifferent or that you approve.

Cranmer exhorts all who care about this to email the Code Policy Team at

Their website recommends that if you write to them, you should include a response cover sheet. If you wish to email them, the link to this is on their website, but for convenience, you can download it from HERE.

His Grace does not need to patronise his readers and communicants with the usual letter-writing guidance which accompanies these sorts of pleas. He is sure that you are all capable of expressing how offensive and disturbing these proposals are, and how abhorrent and profoundly immoral it would be to shroud the horrors of abortion in lightness and joy and promote it in the same fashion as chocolate and instant coffee.


Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

I am livid absolutley livid. I have just ripped off another shirt.

Damn these socialists.

17 June 2009 at 09:38  
Blogger Gnostic said...

And are they going to advocate the psychiatric service to help the many many profoundly guilt ridden women years down the line?

I am not against abortion - nor would I contemplate having one - but I find it abhorrent that it should be treated as little more than birth control. Is it so difficult to teach children the responsibility of abstinence? I managed to learn it and so did almost all of my peers. Or has morality in schools and homes finally gone the way of the dodo?

17 June 2009 at 09:46  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

I'm currently attending a "Speak Easy" course at my child's excellent CofE primary school. It is a course designed by the FPA with the primary motivation of "reducing teenage pregnancy".

The main doctrine of this course - and most other 'sexual health' & 'pregnancy advice' agencies - is that for a teenager to have a baby is the worst thing that could happen to them.

The aim of stopping - or even delaying - children engaging in sexual behaviour doesn't seem to enter their minds. Even an abortion is counted as a 'success' since it doesn't count as a teenage pregnancy.

Here's a quote from the Family Education Trust which I think sums them up nicely, "The FPA seem to think that by doing the same thing with younger and younger children they are going to get a different result. Actually they are going to reap the whirlwind. There is a constant emphasis on biological knowledge and an absence of understanding that feelings can be hurt and sex outside a loving relationship leads to damage and retreat.”

We were told on the introduction to the course that the more info they had and the earlier they had it, the less likely they are to engage in early sexual behaviour (... which I'm glad to say that the experience of just about everyone on the course seemed to contradict) seems to be at odds with this interesting piece of research just released.

17 June 2009 at 09:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

For a long time I have not taken too much notice when communicants harp on about the islamification of the Free West.

So what has that got to do with abortion?

All right.

Do you want to know a dangerous thing? Look on The Brussels Journal’s website and the ‘alleged’ interview with Sarkozy.

17 June 2009 at 10:00  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

A link would be useful D. Singh

17 June 2009 at 10:07  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

17 June 2009 at 10:12  
Blogger McKenzie said...

I couldn't read all of that but I got the gist of it though. I am not emotionally stable enough to apply rationality with regards to this so I will leave it to everyone else. My thoughts and opinions would probably not help.

17 June 2009 at 10:44  
Anonymous the recusant said...

“After such a watershed, he has no problem with advertising condoms, for he is Anglican.”

Thomas Cranmer: Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.
Mrs. Cranmer (in her box): What are we dear?
Thomas Cranmer: Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.
Mrs. Cranmer (in her box): Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?
Thomas Cranmer: Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.
Mrs. Cranmer (in her box): But it's the same with us, Thomas.
Thomas Cranmer: What do you mean?
Mrs. Cranmer (in her box): Well, I mean, we've got two children, and we've had sexual intercourse twice.
Thomas Cranmer: That's not the point. We could have it any time we wanted.
Mrs. Cranmer (in her box): Really?
Thomas Cranmer: Oh, yes, and, what's more, because we don't believe in all that Papist claptrap, we can take precautions.
Mrs. Cranmer (in her box): What, you mean... lock the door?
Thomas Cranmer: No, no. I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue.
Mrs. Cranmer (in her box): What d'you mean?
Thomas Cranmer: I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with you...
Mrs. Cranmer (in her box): Oh, yes, Thomas.
Thomas Cranmer: ...and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could insure... that, when I came off, you would not be impregnated.
Mrs. Cranmer (in her box): Ooh.
Thomas Cranmer: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas...
Thomas Cranmer: ... and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom. Oh, no. I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
Mrs. Cranmer (in her box): You what?
Thomas Cranmer: French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.
Mrs. Cranmer (in her box): Have you got one?
Thomas Cranmer: Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Thomas's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Thomas, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'
Mrs. Cranmer (in her box): Well, why don't you?
Thomas Cranmer: But they - Well, they cannot, 'cause their church never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien Episcopal supremacy.

Don’t ya just love Monty Python?

17 June 2009 at 10:53  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Recusant,

You have made His Grace's day, and it is barely coffee time.

Bless you.

17 June 2009 at 11:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

This is one of the issues that reveals the black satanic heart of liberalism. This liberalism is not of the Manchester or Chicago school variety that preached economic doctrines known to the mind of Man since he laid the foundations of the rule of law. No.

This is a liberalism that cloaks itself in a self-generated righteousness that pretends that it knows what is good for mankind – and yet its preferred solution, objectively examined, is death.

Death to courtship and the pursuit of romance – replaced with the self-gratification of the fulfilment of lust and the termination of respect and responsibility that lovers around the globe know is a prerequisite that ennobles a relationship.

What crime have these babies committed that justifies the termination of their lives? None. They are guiltless and innocent of any crime. Yet in our country 200, 000 are flushed down the hospital sink every year.

Just like the holocaust every one of us plays our part in delivering the baby for her appointment with death: the pro-death lobby provide the ideology; the telephone engineer provides the line to make the appointment; the clerk at the hospital registers the time and date; the cleaners clean the instruments of death; the bus driver delivers mother and child and a psychiatrist awaits the mother with empty arms.

And then there are the ‘backward Christian soldiers’; where is God in all this they cry?

Tell them the truth, my lord, He has been knocking on the door of their hearts; this country has shut Him out.

17 June 2009 at 11:18  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

It just gets worse and worse your Grace.

BPAS and Marie Stopes perform thousands of abortions each year paid for by the NHS. The extra money to pay for expensive advertising on TV and Radio would no doubt become part of the overhead in running these organisations. This means that it would be found from the charge to the NHS of carrying out abortions. As a taxpayer, not only do I pay for abortions on the NHS, I would also be paying to advertise for them.

I do not want my TV viewing polluted with people hawking their pregnancy advice (aka abortion services) no matter how ‘tastefully’ presented. And no doubt it will be tastefully presented. All the best advertising brains will be focused on how to present the product. Such advertisements will give a moral equivalence to shopping or buying any other service.

What also p****s me off to the nth degree is that the likes of BPAS and Marie Stopes can pay lobbyists significant wads of cash to push this agenda while the likes of us, your communicants, have to divert from trying to survive in the Gordon Brown socialist paradise and try to make their voices heard.

17 June 2009 at 11:28  
Anonymous the recusant said...

I am pleased to have lightened Your Graces day, if only I could write so well.

On a serious note anyone wishing to submit objections to the proposed codes but either lack the words or the time, here are the relevant objections to advertising abortion, just top and tail it with your details before emailing it.

In response to your pubic consultation regarding the proposed changes to advertising standards, in particular with respect to the proposed code
“11.11 - Advertisements for post-conception pregnancy advice services must make clear in the advertisement if the service does not refer women directly for abortion. Cross reference: See also rule 11.9 and section 15 Faith, Religion and Equivalent”
Please find my response as follows which although pre prepared fully covers my objections and the reasons why I object to advertising abortion on TV:
- Advertisements have a duty to be truthful and transparent. Abortion providers should be deemed in breach of this duty if they omit key facts about the baby’s development, how abortion is carried out, and the implications for women. They should not present abortion in a euphemistic or promotional manner, or a manner which misleadingly implies that they offer any help or support to women wishing to continue their pregnancies.
- Abortion has serious implications for women’s health. The psychological and physical impact of abortion should not be trivialised by advertisements.
- No organisation should be allowed to use public money to advertise for abortion.
- The reality of abortion should not be presented in a demeaning manner. Ending a child’s life should not be reduced to another consumer choice. Abortion is not a proper subject for advertisements. It should not be advertised alongside a packet of crisps.
- Given the widespread opposition to abortion, and the fact that pro-abortion organisations do not offer positive support to women with their pregnancies, they should not be able to advertise on either radio or TV.
- Abortion providers should not be allowed to advertise abortion at any time on TV when the advertisements may be viewed by children.

Your Etc

17 June 2009 at 11:42  
Blogger Andromeda said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 June 2009 at 11:56  
Blogger Andromeda said...

I trust His Grace is aware that schools cannot exclude pregnant schoolgirls on grounds of pregnancy alone. "There is no link betweeen pregnancy and formal exclusion" I was told by the education authority.

It seems that they are now so brazen that they go around ostentatiously patting their swelling tummies while well-meaning teaching staff ask after their health.

This visual miasma is absorbed, consciously and subconsiouscly, by impressionable schoolgirls, who are more often than not these days singly-parented by women who have an unedifying series of unsuitable lovers of low-quality low-status men who may really be more interested in the adolescent daughter than the mother herself.

These are the ones without moral guidance most likely to suffer unwanted pregnancy, for it is invariably the case that sexually liberated parents find it hard to preach a practice of abstinence to their children.

If you want to deal with abortion, then deal with unwanted pregnancy.

If you want to deal with unwanted pregnancy, deal with female promiscuity. Abstinence is after all better than contraception, for both our mental and sexual health.

If you want to deal with female promiscuity, you would have to challenge the assumptions of feminism, viz that women have the right to be as promiscuous as men.

However, to do so would be to attract the hatred, ridicule and castration by the Feminazis, would it not?

And so the cowed and conceptually castrated men stay silent.

Only the Muslims dare question feminism now. Not even the Big Bad BNP will do so these days, for they fear the wrath of their WAGs ...

17 June 2009 at 12:01  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Miss/Mrs/Ms Andromeda,

His Grace would be appalled if girls were to be deprived of their education because of pregnancy. Why curse the child with ignorance or shackle him or her with a lack of learning? This is not Iran or Saudi Arabia: to exclude young girls from school for fornication would be tantamount to mentally stoning them. It would only serve to perpetuate the darkness of the uneducated. Of course there should be no formal link between pregnancy and formal exclusion. The proposal (for you appear to make it) is abhorrent.

17 June 2009 at 12:15  
Blogger Andromeda said...

Let me make it clear that I was not suggesting for a moment either stoning or depriving them of their education, but of sending them to a school for pregnant schoolgirls.

Surely the Archbishop agrees with me that this policy is practical as well as proportionate?

17 June 2009 at 12:32  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

I know this topic is serious but on a lighter note I must say that
Recusant's Monty Python script is
absolutely hilarious and worthy of a place on my fridge door, where all important items are displayed.
However I dont think this really is a Monty Python script and that Recusant just may be a potential comic genius.The jokes are getting better and better on this site.

17 June 2009 at 12:36  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"Surely the Archbishop agrees with me that this policy is practical as well as proportionate?"


Not remotely.

17 June 2009 at 12:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Would you permit a kindness? Below is an extract from the writer Kimball on Muggeridge’s view on liberalism. I think Christians need educating on the nature of the enemy that confronts us.

‘It is one thing-an important thing-to proclaim the bestiality of Communism or Nazism. It is quite another to discern the ways in which liberalism itself nurtures unfreedom. By the 1950s, Muggeridge had come to believe that liberalism is “the destructive force of the age." In part, his criticism was reminiscent of Tocqueville's. Unchecked, the impulse to equality became an impulse to homogeneity: the drive for democracy involved a democratic despotism that did not, as Tocqueville put it, so much tyrannize as infantilize. "The welfare state," Muggeridge observed, "is a kind of zoo which provides its inmates with ease and comfort and unfits them for life in their natural habitat."

But Muggeridge's brief against liberalism went deeper liberalism, he thought, illustrated the paradox of good intentions, whereby the opposite of what was intended comes to pass. Consider education. Scratch a liberal, and he shouts "Education!" Whatever social or political problem society confronts, good liberals huddle together and decide "What's needed is more and better education." (Obligatory codicil: "And the money - i.e., your money - to pay for it.") Is crime a problem? Education is the answer. Poverty? Education is the answer. War, violence, sickness, unkindness, death? Education, education, education. If only, the liberal muses, everyone were awakened to his or her own true interests, all the world's problems could be solved. But this notion, Muggeridge saw, is an illusion. Liberalism proposes what is unattainable: that we little men and women should live in amity together on our minute corner of the universe for the few score years vouchsafed us, of our own volition seeking one another's good and sharing equitably in the material things which satisfy our needs and desires. This is a fantasy. This, in human terms, cannot be. Therefore, the effect of believing in it is constantly tearing the world to pieces.

On the question of liberalism, as indeed on much else, Muggeridge's thinking was close to that of Dostoevsky, one of his favourite authors. He understood that some men (and women) do nasty things not because they are ill-informed but because they are nasty. Evil is not something an especially plush government program is going to eliminate. Evil is irremediable. The liberal's cheery vision of universal brotherhood is false because it is based on an abbreviated view of human nature. "If," Muggeridge wrote, "you envisage men as being only men, you are bound to see human society as a factory farm in which the only consideration that matters is the well-being of the livestock and the prosperity or productivity of the enterprise." Liberalism is like utilitarianism in proposing to superintend happiness. But the happiness on offer is the blunt palliative of animal satisfaction: satiety, not joy.’

Roger Kimball on Malcolm Muggeridge’s view of liberalism

17 June 2009 at 12:46  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...


The issues raised in His Grace's posts are so serious and the issues have such impact on our society and our future that we need the jokes in order to lighten the gloom

17 June 2009 at 12:57  
Blogger Andromeda said...

I note that you are not remotely in favour of sending pregnant schoolgirls to schools for pregnant schoolgirls.

Are you not remotely concerned about unwanted pregnancy amongst teenage schoolgirls?

Do you not agree about the effect of visual miasma I referred to?

In that case, may I ask what solutions YOU propose, Archbishop?

17 June 2009 at 13:04  
Blogger D. Singh said...


By 'unwanted pregnancy do you mean unwanted child?

17 June 2009 at 13:18  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mrs/Miss/Ms Andromeda,

Whilst you are welcome to His Grace's august blog of intelligent and erudite comment upon matters religio-political, he would like most politely to point out that you are a guest in his house and that he will not be subject to any cross examination or demand. Further, there is absolutely no need to shout.

In response to your question, His Grace favours moral education which is best inculcated by keeping company with the moral, not by a process of shameful segregation in which all would doubtless be judged according the morals of the most debased.

17 June 2009 at 13:32  
Blogger Andromeda said...

In answer to D Singh's question about whether "unwanted pregnancy" equals "unwanted child", it would appear that logically, every unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted child.

However, the mother may subsequently come to want it, because her maternal feelings have been aroused.

But the mother's feelings should not be paramount, if she requires the taxpayer's assistance as a single mother.

It is possible that this unwanted pregnancy, who may be an unwanted child as far as the mother is concerned, could become a wanted child by its adoptive parents.

17 June 2009 at 13:47  
Blogger Devil's Kitchen said...

Your Grace,

"If there is correlation between advertising and increased numbers smoking, how can there not be between advertising and increased numbers seeking abortion?"

It is usually unwise to cite state policy on smoking since it is usually badly skewed.

There was, if I recall correctly, very little correlation between the advertising of cigarettes and taking up of smoking—advertising usually served to persuade people to switch brands. (I shall try to find this study when I have a second.)

"Cranmer only has a problem with this if they are purposely screened around programmes aimed at young people and teenagers (and that includes most programmes up until about 10.00pm), which can only serve to promote promiscuity."


In any case, whilst Your Grace "favours moral education", your humble Devil prefers a fact-based position on this.

As such, I have no problem with teenagers having lots and lots of sex: what I do have a problem with is teenagers having unsafe or unwise sex.

The practice in Scotland, for instance, of insisting that children must be taught about sex, and about pregnancy and STDs, but where teachers are not allowed to teach said children about contraception—in order that they might avoid pregnancy or disease—is barking insanity.

As such, I would prefer to destigmatise the purchase of condoms—especially amongst teenagers many of whom are, in any case, at it like rabbits—and good luck to them.


17 June 2009 at 13:54  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ D. Singh (10:00) - Further to your remarks about the Islamization of Europe, there is a translation of the interview with Philippe de Villiers on the Gallia Watch blog, here.

An article by Mark Steyn on European demography is here.

17 June 2009 at 13:56  
Blogger Andromeda said...

I was not aware that I was shouting, Archbishop, and do not understand your last paragraph.

While I would agree with you that one should adopt a policy of warning against unmarried motherhood in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy, what is one to do when, despite all one's warnings, the girl gets pregnant anyway?

What is your solution to that?

Do you not think that the sight of pregnant pre-GCSE schoolgirls could have a corrupting effect on impressionable younger girls, who may suppose that it is not such a bad thing to be a pregnant schoolgirl?

17 June 2009 at 13:57  
Blogger Andromeda said...

What nonsense the Devil's Kitchen preaches.

The safest way of avoiding unwanted pregnancy is not to ATTEMPT to have safer sex, but to have no sex at all, especially if one is still at school.

17 June 2009 at 13:59  
Blogger Dave said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 June 2009 at 14:16  
Blogger Dave said...

What nonsense Andromeda dribbles.

Im 21 and have a few friends with kids and also knew of quite a few back at school. Amongst those with any aspirations for themselves or for future children, these pregnancies were an almighty reminder not to get cornered by an unwanted and unplanned child.

Your Grace's point on segregation is easily comprehended and founded on an insurmountable logic.

And anyway, wouldn't you just be encouraging abortion and hatred of the unborn children by putting the girls under lock and key?

17 June 2009 at 14:18  
Blogger Andromeda said...

Dave, perhaps you would just answer my question about visual miasma, which the Archbishop has failed to address despite repeated requests.

The thought of seeing heavily pregnant schoolgirls patting their tummies proudly while having their health asked after by solicitous teachers is a scenario I find very distasteful and disturbing.

As I have said before, this would tend to make younger more impressionable children think it is OK to be a pregnant schoolgirl.

Would someone just address this issue instead of hissing and spitting at me for suggesting something that might actually work, for a change?

17 June 2009 at 14:28  
Blogger Dave said...

It's my turn to do the misunderstanding. Visual miasma?!?

Just because i see someone slipping in dog mess, it doesn't necessarily follow that I will think it's a good idea and will go out on the streets stalking canines...

17 June 2009 at 14:39  
Blogger Dave said...

And Andromeda,

I do hope you're not suggesting that any ol' person can conceive by the spread of unwanted particles in the air.

PS Has not Your Grace properly answered your questions within the limits of this blogpost's subject? He posted about abortion and advertising last time i checked...

17 June 2009 at 14:48  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

Well, no Dave not any ol person... but we all know of someone who did even without the unwanted particles in the air!i.e. if you believe in the Christmas story.

17 June 2009 at 16:02  
Blogger PaulineG said...

Andromeda says:

".. it would appear that logically, every unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted child."

Just because the child's mother does not want him or her it does not follow that the child is unwanted.

In fact, there is no such thing as an unwanted child because all children are created and wanted by God.

On the main topic, forgive me if this has been covered already but it occurs to me that this draconian proposal is wholly one-sided: While the advertisers must declare if they will not refer for abortion, they are not required to declare whether they provide practical help and support to assist the woman in finding alternative solutions to her difficulties. In the interest of balance that is surely a minimum requirement.

It is also curious that there is apparently no requirement to declare if the organisation providing the 'advice' has any financial interest in the outcome (such as receiving income from doing abortions). In the financial sector that is a complete 'no-no'. But then, what a trivial thing is the life of an unborn child when set against important stuff like money.

Thank you for flagging this up, your Grace, and to the keyboard everyone!

17 June 2009 at 16:17  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

About 3 years ago Sarah Johnson wrote an article in the Catholic Herald entitled '(BPAS)The Most sinister charity in Britain'. In it she revealed that donations from well wishers to BPAS in 2006 amounted to £1000. As Sarah says, 'one measily grand - if her youngest child's primary school PTA couldn't do better than that they would sack the Chairman'.

She went on to say

'The public seems strangely reluctant to support the BPAS in its tireless battle to make abortion easier. But Ann (Furedi - Chief Executive of BPAS) is not worried, because her “charity” has income of over £21 million - partly from "partnership with the NHS” and partly from private clients who pay up to £1640 (“late surgical” at 23-24 weeks being the top whack) to have their unborn babies put to death (described as "charitable activities" to the Charity Commissioners).'

This proposal to allow abortion ads on TV comes to the Advertising Standards Association from the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV. If you go to their website you find find that one of its members is --- wait for it --- Anne Furedi.

Smell a rat anyone?

As PaulineG says, to the keyboards everyone. Thank God for the Internet!

17 June 2009 at 16:51  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

Here goes Andromeda
Do I think school children should engage in sex?......NO

Would I be uncomfortable teaching pregnant children.....YES

Is there any way of preventing school children from having sex....NO

Do I advocate the practice of safe sex rather than abortion.....YES

Would I advocate a chilhood like mine at a single sex religious school with emphasis on academic achievement,demanding extra curricular activities such as mastering Bachs 48 preludes and fugues where the most erotic encounter experienced was reading The Scarlet Pimpernel....YES

Is this likely?...NO

Do I find the mindless obsession with sex in our society destructive and depressing....YES

17 June 2009 at 17:06  
Anonymous Puritan Preacher said...

Abortion = The sanitised Holocaust.

No camps. No bodies. No stench.
No trace.

17 June 2009 at 17:25  
Anonymous the recusant said...

Mr Sydneysider,

I am afraid I cannot claim credit for the original which is from Monty Pythons film ‘The Meaning of Life’. Would that I could, but thank you for the kind words.
As His Grace recommends, please complain about this thoroughly unwelcome proposal, we most likely will not make an impact on the final outcome but at least we let the Broadcast Committee of the Advertising Standards Authority know it is not unopposed.
Perhaps an impact could be made if enough are willing; all those concerned write to the manufacturers whose products are being advertised in the same slot as the abortion provider and inform them we will boycott their products until they insist their product is not advertised alongside the abortionists. The same could be sent to program producers, as in everything, hit them in the pocket.

17 June 2009 at 17:33  
Blogger Adam said...

Was it really not legal to advertise condoms in the UK until this point? That seems so odd, coming from an American.

Tune into any Top 40 radio station here, and you'll get ads for condoms and about "safe sex" clearly targeted to young adults and teens. I have specifically heard ads meant to sound like a dialogue between youths that always end in a "if you're going to have sex, use protection" type of message. Trojan has held promotions on my college's campus several times overt he last couple years.

I guess I always assumed that Europeans had slightly more moral laxity, but I guess this isn't so in the realm of marketing communications.

Abortion is another story. Can't say I've ever seen or heard an ad for abortions, although I have for Planned Parenthood. Not exactly the same thing.

17 June 2009 at 17:37  
Blogger McKenzie said...

I would not have liked being a pupil in a class full of pregnant slags. I could not be a teacher anyway, but it would be undesirable to have pupils up the duff if I were.

I can appreciate the argument about causing too much stigma and making abortion more appealing, but in saying this I agree with the previous communicant who says that there is no effort being made to address the rabbit-like tendencies of kids these days.

The UK media seems to be obsessed with promoting shagging at all levels of depravity. Maybe the ABC's new Sharia law will improve the situation.

When I was a wee lad, uncouth and disrespectful nasty kids got a smack in the mouth. I have boxes of these left over, but they are illegal now.

I think the shouting is reference to the Hijab and its eye catching nature. It's unfortunate to have to say this but it's in your face.

17 June 2009 at 18:40  
Anonymous len said...

It is a reflection on the moral state of our society that euthanasia is illegal but abortion is legal.
Who makes the decisions as to what is acceptable and what is unacceptable?

17 June 2009 at 19:23  
Anonymous Katy said...

Andromeda; you're talking rubbish. Excluding pregnant girls from normal life is just the sort of idiot response that would encourage abortion. What pregnant 14-year-old would continue her pregnancy knowing she'd face the stigma of being excluded from mainstream education, a stigma that would follow her for life. What utter rot. Inclusion in mainstream education is exactly what they need, so they can lead a happy and fulfilled life later, otherwise you have an unhappy parent and QED an unhappy child. Oh, and this is SHOUTING.

Of course, what we really need is proper relationship education rather than anatomical explanations of sex/abortion. What few young women understand is how to deal with the persistent unwanted advances of young men. There's a bonkers mentality in education that we should just tell young girls to say 'no'. Well, my experience is and was that 'no' rarely cuts it for longer than 10 minutes.

17 June 2009 at 19:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to ask the question.

When is the correct/best time to start a family?

Surly our biology tells us that the correct/best time, is as soon as a girl is capable and happy to give birth to children.

We are created in Gods image, are we not? While at the same time God has little or absolutely nothing to say on the question of when precisely children should start begetting children.

This may not be the case for the establishment. Who seriously want to ultimately legislate on every single aspect of human existence, bar absolutely none whatsoever.

The establishment have clearly conspired to encourage/economically force young idiots to have children, preferably before the age of 16. While our more intelligent females are encouraged/economically forced to have them as late as possible, or preferably not at all.

This is clearly extremely divisive, incredibly expensive, and not at all good for middle aged mothers trying to give birth for the first time.

So why does it happen? Why does the establishment CONSPIRE to cause these terribly divisive and unhealthy things. Why indeed is SOCIALISM not at all SOCIAL, or good for society in general?

The answer is SIMPLE and OBVIOUS.

The establishment ( who are the real socialists pure and simple) Bugger up ordinary society DELIBERATELY. It is not an accident, this is done for a purpose, a COMMON PURPOSE.

Socialism does not ultimately make for a better fairer or more equitable society, because these are the very last things that SOCIALISM is actually intended to do. The whole idea is to DESTROY normal cohesive, functional society, so that it can be more easily replaced by a NEW SOCIETY which is planned to be completely orchestrated by the establishment, even more then the current one is. Which has far more to do with Stalins Russia, or Hitlers Germany, then anything we might collectively approve of.

Socialism is a lie, is based on lies, and is propagated by highly dishonest liars and/or brainwashed idiots. How else could the ESTABLISHMENT get us to support something that is bad for just about everyone, in so many ways it truly defies description?

May I please ask people to stop seeing these types of issues, in fact all political issues in terms of right and left. Mainly because there really is NO SUCH THING.

Better to see things in terms such as.

Good v EVIL
Honest v Dishonest.
Socialism v common sense.
God v The Devil herself.
Freedom v slavery

and above all


Always remembering this.

We are divided, murdered, intimidated, and impoverished by THEM, so that our cruel and despotic ruling class can far more easily continued to rule over US.

What other possible explanation could account for what these utter bastards have long since been up to?

Atlas shrugged

17 June 2009 at 19:46  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

Your Grace, it must surely be time to Join the dots, we have on the one hand an EU that promotes minorities through favouritism, 80% of new Jobs have gone to Immigrants since 1997.
905 of whom are Islamic who can openly suggest that homosexuals should be pushed off mountains and not face the full force of the Law, not that anyone should face the full wrath of the Law for staing yor beleifs, carrying it out would be another matter.

On the Other hand, we, the Indigenous are positively encouraged to enagage in Same Sex Marriage, A bill to sterilise our schoolgirls, don't you just know some sections of society will be allowed to be excluded from this.
200,000 abortions per year, 6 Million since 1970.
and now the Advertisement of abortions on TV, trivialising and normalising the clearly Genocidal policies of our ruling elites.

they knew we would never surrender our Soveriegnty to a foreign power.

this is why abortion was legalised.

If I put any more dots on this outline I will have drawn the picture for you myself.

These people are Communsists, it does not matter is the entire EU turns Islamic, it will not affect our elites, they will move in their own cirlces.

17 June 2009 at 22:17  
Anonymous Bethel said...

Your Grace
Andromeda asks'what is the correct/best time to start a family? Well, I favour early morning practice with a little evening light exercise.
By the way, does His Grace realise that today he split an infinitive?

17 June 2009 at 22:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is depressing me. Even more depressing though, I saw my first ghost today. What has this to do with abortion I hear you say, well he said his life was an abortion.

He was from the 18th century and he committed suicide. He had only one regret, and this was that he always had on the back of his mind the possibility that after he did the dastardly deed, somehow things would take a turn for the better in the world.

I was able to tell him that for a while it probably did seem this way. We made amazing advances in science which brought many benefits which enriched our experience of life. Much pain and disease was cured. But all of this was not without cost. We have gone thorough terrible wars and been witness to some of the worse human terrors ever brought about by man upon man.

I was able to tell him that basically though, he has not missed out on much at all. The present state of affairs is that where once there was hope, vision, a plan, something to strive for; there is now only cancer, global warming, Islam, global financial meltdown, overpopulation, unemployment, fascist corrupt politicians, over the counter abortion, swine flu, nuclear holocaust, mass immigration, Romanian thieving gypos, suicide terror, sharia law, speed cameras, council tax, CCTV, The BBC, Lib Dems, deadly hospital bugs, Spam email, Bangladesh call centers, churches that ban bald people, political correctness, thought crimes, traffic wardens, tax on your wages - then tax on everything you spend it on, lots of forms to fill in to get some of the tax back, gangs of teen stabbing merchants, rap music, an endless list of sexual deviancy, one God who has somehow managed to convince the whole world to kill each other in His name,.......This when he stared to laugh and cry at the same time. I was compelled to do the same.

I was able to share the fact that I too was having suicidal thoughts, and that I too was having similar thoughts about maybe somehow the world would improve after I have done the dastardly deed. Watching him rolling around in a fit of ghostly hysteria, it occurred to me that this was highly improbable, and I would be doing myself a favour.

17 June 2009 at 22:59  
Anonymous Penny said...

"If you want to deal with unwanted pregnancy, deal with female promiscuity"


How about some good, solid attempts to teach lads some restraint?

Any female will tell you that Katy's comment is absolutely true:

"What few young women understand is how to deal with the persistent unwanted advances of young men. There's a bonkers mentality in education that we should just tell young girls to say 'no'. Well, my experience is and was that 'no' rarely cuts it for longer than 10 minutes."

It's a real battle and one which sometimes turns extremely nasty both physically and emotionally.

I get pretty teed-off with what appears to be an apparent belief - albeit unconscious and generally unchallenged - that females must be the only ones who can and should exert control. They must do the fighting off, whilst lads are pretty much expected to go forth and, if not multiply, then sow oats.

The same applies to teenage pregnancy and single-parenthood. The female is nearly always the one whom society views as the culpable partner. I don't hear politicians banging on about teenage fathers half so much as I do about teenage mothers. It does take two.

Perhaps society needs to start taking a more balanced approach, using more vocal condemnation of the irresponsible behaviour of some young lads.

17 June 2009 at 23:01  
Anonymous Penny said...

Adrian...what bill to sterilise our schoolgirls??

My dot-joining skills are sadly lacking here.

17 June 2009 at 23:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Penny 23:08

This link might help with joining dots

17 June 2009 at 23:27  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

This Proposal by Dawn Primorolo...

Sterilise British Schoolgirls

This is a deliberate and Multifaceted ( so as not to arouse suspicion )
attack designed to reduce our numbers.

Look at the Recent Embryology bill, which made abortions Even easier to obtain, requiring only one doctor rather than two.

It's all in the same direction and all aimed at reducing our numbers...

Meanwhile flooding us out of existance with mass immigration.

many of those 7.2 Million abortions would by now be raising families of their own.

Our Political elites do not care who they Rule over.

but they WILL have their EUSSR.

17 June 2009 at 23:29  
Blogger English Viking said...

I followed Your Grace's instructions and e-mailed the link indicated in the blog entry emphasizing my disgust at the proposed abortion advertisements. I received an automated reply stating that all concerned were considering the current proposals and that I should mail a DIFFERENT address...... I am worried that a lot of people's protests will go unheeded because of an underhanded trick with e-mail addresses. PLEASE mail the correct address.

18 June 2009 at 00:14  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

Do I detect a certain smugness in your comment Bethel?Is it pc to boast about your very satisfactory
domestic arrangements? Could this arouse envy in others?I can see it
all ending in tears and frustration.

18 June 2009 at 03:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

A chap called Demion Thompson says in today’s Telegraph that he once revealed your identity, and that you are against Romish and papist ideas? Or is he wrong? I hope I’m not stepping on any theological sensitivities?

18 June 2009 at 08:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not convinced that this isn't a government initiative given it's level of media control.

Moral issues aside, condoms and abortions are readily available to those in need, often via GP's. Teenagers today are not 'unenlightened' as far as 'sex' is concerned and the availability of 'services' accommodating it.

Unless the adverts are paid by taxpayers, the 'initiative' is expensive business advertising for profit and gain from abortion - another PFI - private funding initiative increasing popular with Nulabor.

I conclude they're 'testing the water' with public opinion - and I'm convinced the real agenda behind the spin is privatization of abortion via a government appointed body, as opposed to GP referral.

Teenage pregnancies will continue to rise due to 'government perks' - housing and benefits - a chosen path for many.

18 June 2009 at 09:03  
Blogger Andromeda said...

I will just respond to Penny's comment at 17 June 2009 23:01, who accuses me of blaming women but not men.

This does not stem from some Islam-inspired misogyny, but for reasons of practicality.

Because it is women who get pregnant and are left holding the baby, it is they who should take more care.

It really is that simple, but perhaps it is decades of feminist indoctrination that stops you from seeing what is most commonsensical and obvious.

In response to Dave's comments about visual miasma, his dog mess analogy is not apposite. Seeing someone step in dog mess and cursing would be a visual signal for sensible to take more care where they walk.

Seeing pregnant schoolgirls being given more attention by teaching staff would inevitably lead to others thinking that it is not such a bad thing to do.

I rather wonder at the motives of people who continually screech at me for being inhumane, yet have no solution of their own to offer.

May I suggest that however it was dealt with before the 60s would be the right way?

I believe that in the old days girls were withdrawn from school, made to have an abortion by their mothers, or allowed to have the baby in a different part of the country, and then made to give it away or have it brought home as an orphaned relation.

18 June 2009 at 10:08  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Why advertise condoms and not IUDs and diaphragms ? this is surely discriminatory ?

18 June 2009 at 12:04  
Anonymous Penny said...


"It really is that simple, but perhaps it is decades of feminist indoctrination that stops you from seeing what is most commonsensical and obvious"

What on earth is 'feminist' about my suggestion that young boys and men learn to understand and respect girls and young women?

Women should take more care because they are the ones left holding the baby? Young men these days know perfectly well how to use condoms and they are no longer relegated to the top shelf of a barbers shop.
Protection against sexually transmitted disease and AIDS extends this argument well beyond a matter of unwanted pregnancy and into the realms of social responsiblity.

Your view of commonsensical and obvious seems to centre around 'making' girls have abortions, 'making' them give their baby up for adoption or otherwise 'putting them away'.

I don't know how far back beyond the '60's you want to go, but the treatment of unmarried mothers was simply appalling and caused huge psychological damage. Putting them away sometimes involved homes for the mentally ill - there are cases where some languished there for years. There were also the Magdalene nuns whose cruel treatment of young women is now known. Of course, these are quite extreme examples, but I have met women who were 'put away' into less Draconian homes and, in varying degrees, were made to feel unworthy and ashamed.

Almost always, women were the ones that had to hang their heads, feel ashamed, suffer the stigma of society whilst men were able to get on with their lives. This isn't about feminism at all - it's about society judging and holding accountable only one person for an act that took two.

Society has, thankfully, moved on. We don't send children down mines or up chimneys anymore either.

Given the huge amount of sex educaton and the availability of contraception, the question of why we still have unwanted pregnancy is clearly complex - which is perhaps why we cannot come up with solutions off the top of our heads.

18 June 2009 at 12:58  
Blogger McKenzie said...

I don't see any justification in trying to have it all ways. As far as I can ascertain, God would like us to exercise extreme control over our capacity for screwing around.

In order to accomplish some kind of discipline here, society needs to advertise a message of action and consequences and the responsibility thereof. If screwing around cannot be abandoned due to lack of self control and the giving up of trying, it is not still an option to somehow justify this weak and pathetic attitude by placing Godly labels on it.

Screw around if it must be so, fill the classrooms with breast feeding whores; make bigger classrooms to accommodate push chairs, but do not kid your self that the results will be highly educated girls and boys.

18 June 2009 at 13:00  
Blogger McKenzie said...

There are Christian people out there who support abortion and also would have no problems receiving IVF treatment. These people are worse than whores. They have no sense what so ever about the sanctity of life. They will scorn any ideas about race or genes being important, yet the idea of adopting someone else's bastard is just too repulsive for them. Then they go to church and condemn the terrible unbelievers. They are like Satan's piss on the dungeon floor.

18 June 2009 at 13:15  
Blogger PaulineG said...

Adrian P said:

"Look at the Recent Embryology bill, which made abortions even easier to obtain, requiring only one doctor rather than two."

Just for the record, Adrian, I believe the Embryology Bill did not alter the Abortion law at all, despite huge efforts on all sides and a range of 'liberalising' amendments, including the one you mention, which would have further abandoned vulnerable women to coercion and the aborttoirs.

The attempts within the Bill in May 2008 to tighten the law were voted out. At the final stages of the Bill's passage in October all the abortion amendments failed through lack of time (by Government design).

One of the failed amendments would have required all pregnancy advice service advertisements to state whether they were prepared to refer for abortion. (No other information required!)

This BCAP proposal incorporates this but, as his Grace intimates, is worse because it also permits the broadcasting of these advertisements.

This is a devious, shameful and anti-democratic proposal. The agenda is abundantly clear. It must be resisted.

18 June 2009 at 13:27  
Blogger McKenzie said...

"I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself"
DH Lawrence.

Animals have no notion about the sanctity of life. They have no feelings about fair or unfairness. To them life is a daily basis of survival. To us the Leopard seems cold and murderous with its prey in a deadly stranglehold in her jaws. But the Leopard is her self subject to predators and if caught, she too will die quite unceremoniously and without any feelings of unfairness, she will simply struggle and endure each second until the end.

I think God wanted something different for humans, and we have supposedly been created in the image of God. What this means exactly is becoming less clear by the day.

18 June 2009 at 13:37  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Just one thing to point out.

People aren't pro-abortion, they are pro-choice. (Nobody advocates abortion they just allow people to make their own decisions for their particular circumstances)

And the other people are not pro-life, they are anti-abortion, maybe with a touch of anti-choice (No group can claim to be pro-life when some of it's members advocate and have carried out murder in the name of their group).

As for the rest of this I ain't even going to get involved, but please stop try to demonise one group with words while lifting the others to dizzy height's they don't deserve.

18 June 2009 at 13:40  
Blogger McKenzie said...

To actively promote screwing around, and then advocate abortion en mass as a fix is not a claimable attribute for any society that thinks it is somehow civilized and progressive.

No. We are back where we started. It is an uncomfortable truth, and it seems we are not ready to ether accept it, or even grow up at all.

18 June 2009 at 14:10  
Blogger Andromeda said...

Penny knows there is a problem but baulks at the solution because it seems a little harsh. Therefore she advocates, like the liberal she is, that we wring our hands a little harder.

Do that if it makes you feel better, Penny, but it won't improve the situation one jot.

This sort of thing is typical of Christian and Liberal hypocrisy, who don't want to be the bad guys, who have no solutions, only the desire to demonise those who do for being uncompassionate, for we now live in the Era of Totalitarian and Indiscriminate Compassion, and I have been tried and convicted in its Kangaroo Court and found guilty of the thoughtcrime of being insufficiently compassionate towards the slags and slappers who should have known better had they had elders and betters who fulfilled their moral responsibility of telling them what that "better" is.

These Liberal Christians are like women who come whingeing to you with their problems, and then get offended when you tell them exactly what to do, because all they wanted was a bit of a moan, and resent being told the obvious, which was a course of action they have no desire to take.

Perhaps there is a grain of truth or two in what Nietzsche said about Christianity, which is that it is the religion most suited to the mentality of women and slaves.

18 June 2009 at 18:59  
Blogger Andromeda said...

Re McKenzie's comment about Man's ability to Reason and Moralise, I would suggest that it is the Ideology of Indiscriminate Compassion and Political Expediency that has dulled and discouraged this faculty in most people.

Animals and humans have always operated on the principle of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. However, it is Man's superior ability to think that enabled him to create in his mind a unique and omnipotent God from his mind and then behave as if He existed, in order to use this concept as an instrument of government and morality.

How well it is used entirely depends on our ability to reason, which is of course entirely dependent on our desire to seek Truth, act upon it and speak it, without fear or favour.

I wonder why hypocrisy is always used in the context of Christianity. I suspect it is to do with the Christian imperative to believe in a lie, ie that Jesus is Son of God, that hampers the reasoning abilities of most Christians.

18 June 2009 at 19:09  
Anonymous len said...

Andromeda, Satan is a master at deception , he has you!
It will take a revelation from God (Yahweh)and a lot of and humility from you to accept the Truth -Jesus Christ.

18 June 2009 at 19:33  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

I'm Pro choice but 200,000 Per year !!!
At up to 24 weeks, that's six months !!!

These are not just bunches of cells are Ms Stokes et al would have you believe, at this time they are viable children and it's barbaric, especially when the Pregnancy need never have happened.

Come on ladies.

I would reduce the limit and start making having children more enjoyable,

how ?

By not painting it as so negative in the Mass Media.

all part of the same EUgenics agenda I think.

18 June 2009 at 20:50  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...


The word prochoice no longer has a connotation of 'do I have an abortion or not?' . Today, prochoice means 'what type of abortion suits me best?'. Jeni Murray the woman's hour queen bee would subscribe to that.

'No group can claim to be pro-life when some of its members advocate and have carried out murder in the name of their group'

Quite true. If people go round killing other people, they cannot be prolife. All these instances have taken place in North America, where with sickening regularity, people run amok with a gun for all reasons and none.
You also know very well that no such incident has ever happened in this country. In fact prolife groups in this country are usually shouted down by the liberals and the far left.
If you intended to imply that all groups claiming to be prolife are tarred with the same brush, you would be extremely unfair.

19 June 2009 at 00:03  
Blogger Andromeda said...

Len, you can only assert, never prove, that Jesus is Son on God. You only wish to do so because this is the core of Christian doctrine, without which you will no longer be Christian.

There is no morality in saying what you know or believe to be a lie.

There is no morality either in making others to do the same.

19 June 2009 at 07:19  
Anonymous len said...

Andromeda, The apostle Paul held views similar to you once, until he encountered the living Lord Jesus Christ.
Many moslems are encountering Jesus Christ through dreams and visions and becoming believers.
All it requires is honesty, humility, and a desire to know the Truth.

19 June 2009 at 08:11  
Blogger Andromeda said...

Dreams and visions are not the best way to encounter Christ, in my opinion.

And what could Christ do for these dreamers, he who could not even save himself from execution?

His alleged divinity was the best spin his followers could make of his undignified death.

An executed revolutionary is not an unmitigated success, after all.

The Prophet Muhammad on the other hand was a success, and lived to a ripe old age, his legacy of revelation intact.

That is the truth of the matter, Len, which cannot be gainsaid by further assertions of Christ's divinity, which is neither the Truth nor an undisputed truth.

19 June 2009 at 08:33  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

ultramontane grumpy old catholic

I admit that no murders have been carried out in the name of !pro-life" groups in this country, but I would say that their actions have been supported by members of "pro-life" groups in this country which kind of tars the reputation of the group itself.

And I admit I was perhaps being a tad facetious, but if all of us ungodly baby eating lacking any morals atheists can all be tarred with the same brush then why can't we do the same to christian groups (and lets face it, the pro-life groups are religious christian groups).

"Today, prochoice means 'what type of abortion suits me best?'. "

I think we both know this isn't true and perhaps you are now being a little facetious. If this were the case then please explain the unbelieveably high numbers of teenage (single or otherwise)mothers in Britain today? By your view these thousands of children would have just had it sucked out.

The reasons for unwanted preganancy are wide and varied as such people need the facility to be able to make an informed decision that is the correct choice for them, what they don't need is to be made to feel like scum be people that don't know anything about their specific situation. Because I would certainly say that every "pro-life" group tars anyone that partakes in an abortion with the same brush, and on that one I am not being facetious.

19 June 2009 at 09:41  
Blogger PaulineG said...

TheGlovner and ultra montane grumpy old catholic,

You are agreed that:
'No group can claim to be pro-life when some of its members advocate and have carried out murder in the name of their group'

While I disagree with you, umgoc, with some sadness, I must challenge this shared view. Anyone can claim attachment to a group or movement and then commit a heinous crime in their name. It is a nonsense to claim that the group is necessarily tainted by this. Unless such groups in any way condone or encourage such activities there can be no grounds for such a claim. Neither of you offers any evidence of this.

19 June 2009 at 09:44  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

The Glovner

I know it is convenient to demonise pro life groups in this country and I can't produce a dossier of everyone's views.

But here is a statement from the prolife alliance about the killing of that doctor in the USA

It sums up the views what all prolife groups I know of in the UK.

You mention 'treating women who have abortions like scum' Far from it! A large number of women approach organisations like LIFE every year to seek support because they feel bad about having had the abortion. They are treated nonjudgmentally and comforted by diploma counsellers and support skilled helpers. This can be long term support stretching over many months, but of course the healing has ultimately to be done by the client herself. Some of these people who provide this service have had abortions themselves.

"Today, prochoice means 'what type of abortion suits me best?'."

From the point of view of the left liberal elite in this country this is indeed the spin.

The girls that contribute to the teenage pregnancy figures are influenced by other factors which can be maternal (mother nature kicking in), their innate compassion, the way they have been brought up, economic....

I recall listening to a representative of the Rowntree foundation complaining that in spite of all their efforts, (not much of the non judgmental, non directional approach here!) some girls persist in having their babies.

'the pro-life groups are religious christian groups' True up to a point (there are members of prolife groups who are non christian and those who are atheists) but the majority are christians. And so what? There are lots of organisations, well respected and valued today that began their life as Christian sponsored organisations.

19 June 2009 at 11:35  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"From the point of view of the left liberal elite in this country this is indeed the spin."

Which you are then guilty of applying your own spin on here. The fact of the matter is that for some people abortion is the right choice, for others giving birth and keeping their child is, or adoption for others. But there is a choice and the choice should be made by the individual concerned and not made for them by other groups who know nothing of their individual situation. And sometimes these groups might go out their way to help these people, other times they stand outside an abortion clinic and scream at the people walking in with fury at what they suspect they are about to do without giving one thought to why that person is there past their opinion that they have came to murder their baby.

"but the majority are christians. And so what? "

I think you miss the point I was making. I have nothing against Christian groups in general, my issue is with people of one particular group (the christian group in these cases) forcing their views onto people that are not in their group.

If abortion isn't right for them then that's fine. However I just feel they should respect that others don't share their views and shouldn't have to put up with the abuse that is dished out towards them.

It's a bit of a bad analogy and for that I apologise, but could you imagine the outrage from the christians if a bunch of atheists were to stand outside a church every Sunday waving placards of people killed in the crusades and blaming it on the people going in to the church?

19 June 2009 at 11:58  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

After this courteous exchange of posts, we may be near some agreement.

I agree that whoever stands outside an abortion facility and screams abuse at the women going in is wrong, absolutely.

I would hope that the Police get informed about such groupings and act sharpish.

But I have no problems with groups standing outside and quietly displaying a plackard as long as the words are not abusive. The group leader normally informs the police that this was going to happen.

(By the way, this is not one sided. When a friend of mine opened a LIFE Charity shop in Coventry in the '90s to sell baby clothes and equipment, the shop was subjected to daily harassment for weeks on end and on one occasion superglue was injected into the lock)

With your analogy, I wouldnt be intimidated if a group of Muslims stood outside Westminster Cathedral and displayed placards saying that the Crusades were wrong. If they shout for the Pope to be executed, as they did after Regensberg, I certainly would be intimidated.

19 June 2009 at 13:04  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I think we can certainly say we agree on the major points then, every group has their idiots I think you would agree.

Unfortunately in this day and age it just appears that the ratio of idiots to rational people is becoming larger and larger (although this could just be down to media attention and spin) and the mantra of live and let live seems to go somewhat ignored these days.

And once again I apologise for my analogy, it was deeply flawed on so many levels but I was struggling to find one to accurately portray the situation from the other viewpoint.

19 June 2009 at 13:17  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

To The Glovner


This has been a good discussion.

Pax et bonum!

19 June 2009 at 13:44  
Anonymous len said...

Jesus Christ came to this earth to redeem fallen man to a Holy God .
He did this by making it possible for mans fallen, corrupted, spirit to be restored and re-connected to God.( Yahweh)

Muhammed gave man a series of harsh and brutal laws to control his fallen nature and left man basically as fallen and and corrupt as he found him but with a veneer of religion.

God changes man from the inside (new spirit) but man ( religion) changes the outward appearance but leaves the dead corrupted spirit inside.
That is why Jesus Christ called the pharisees( religious leaders) "whitewashed tombs" full of dead mens bones.

19 June 2009 at 20:17  
Blogger Andromeda said...

Len, I know you have not read the Koran and from the way you talk, never will, because you are afraid of doing anything that might make you disposed to admit that the Koran is clearer, more detailed and comprehensive in its warnings and reminders.

Christians who read the Koran in order to better argue the relative merits of the 3 monotheist religions find themselves utterly persuaded after they have read the Koran, if they keep an open mind.

The ones who refuse to read it know full well that that is the danger.

19 June 2009 at 23:47  
Anonymous len said...

Andromeda , I have read the Koran.
I found it to be disjointed, and illogical.

The Holy word of Yahweh God by comparison is Truth.In Bible prophesies alone Jesus Christ fulfilled 100(a very conservative estimate)
Many of the prophesies concerning the Messiah were totally beyond human control..Birth Place, time, manner of death: peoples reactions, piercing of side burial, resurrection, etc .
Work out by logic alone what chances are of one person fulfilling 100 prophesies.?

20 June 2009 at 01:49  
Blogger Andromeda said...

While I am delighted to hear that you have read the Koran, Len, you clearly read it with a closed mind. It consists of moral warnings and guidance expressed in legalistic terms, rather like a contract you would be making with God if He were a door-to-door salesman promising eternal life and bliss if you fulfil your part of your contract.

The Koran is no more than a restatement of the Ten Commandments in poetic and legalistic form. All the morality that is contained in Judaism and Christianity you will find synthesised in the Koran, with the over-harsh bits in the Old Testament and the vague bits that create doubt and conflict, such as the Trinity, excised.

If I were you, I would choose the religion that is

1) most effective in doing

2) the most good

3) for the most people.

Ask yourself if you really believe in the trinity, or are you really just a Cultural Christian, who uses Christianity as a badge of identity?

You are welcome to tell me what you find disjointed and illogical about the Koran, should you wish to pursue this discussion.

20 June 2009 at 08:03  
Blogger Andromeda said...

I apologise to the Archbishop for my part in changing a debate about abortion into one about theology and taking up space on his blog.

Those who wish to pursue this further with me may wish to go to:

to continue the discussion.

20 June 2009 at 08:23  
Anonymous len said...

if you think that theology is irrelevant to this debate you are mistaken.
Our whole society is disintegrating because it has rejected Gods truth and re-written its own moral code.
On the one hand society promotes sex in advertising, music, films, etc, and on the other hand is now promoting abortion to dispose with the unwanted results of promiscuous sex.

20 June 2009 at 10:00  
Blogger Andromeda said...

I note what you say, Len, but it is undeniably a fact that many Christians find the trinity more than they can swallow.

This is what has made them throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Islam only requires you to agree that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet.

Simple but strong compared to the Byzantine complexity and incomprehensibility of the Nicene creed.

We should always prefer simplicity to complexity. Fewer things are likely to go wrong.

20 June 2009 at 12:15  
Anonymous len said...

At the risk of abusing his Graces`s patience,

It is interesting to note that in the Koran there are references to suggest that Muhammad had contact with corrupted forms of Christianity,in Sura AL-Maida 116-117 Allah questions Jesus 'Did you say unto men, Take me and my mother as gods apart from God?.Of course nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus or any of the Apostles say that Mary should be taken as a goddess or worshipped as the 'Mother of God', but by the time of Muhammad corrupted Christianity had done just that.The Koran also contains the story of Jesus making clay birds and imparting life to them.This is nowhere in the New Testament but it is in the 'Infancy Gospel of Thomas' .This is one of the many writings rejected by the early church, but believed by a number of heretical Gnostic groups. The fact that this story is contained in the Koran suggests that Muhammad had contact with such groups.
Interestingly the Koran also contains material relating to the Old Testament which is not found in the Bible, but which is found in the Jewish Talmud, including the story that the golden calf made a roaring sound when it was completed and that Solomon knew the language of birds. this suggests that Mohammad had contact with Jewish groups that familiarised him with parts of the Talmud.
The Jews of Medina and Mecca communicated their legends to Muhammad who then recast them.
(The Talmud was completed a century previous to the era of Muhammad)

20 June 2009 at 15:25  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

I'd like to propose a solution, that we stop teaching children about Sex at age five and just let them be children, or be pro choice by leting their parents decide when it is right for their children to learn these things.

Introduce Pro family Laws.
If we must cater for divorce, why not have 10 yr Marriages, with the option for renewal.

Next I propose a Clean up of the Absolute anti Family Rubbish we have on our TV and in the Media, just look at programmes like eastenders, coronation street, the jeremy kyle show.

If I wanted to Destroy a society from within, this is the way I'd do it.
There is now so much of this subversive, anti family and British Psychological abuse on TVit's blatantly obvious we, the British people are under attack.

20 June 2009 at 20:48  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

ask yourself why the soaps on TV are so Horribly negative, why are their story lines not about Love, Friendship, family, courage, compassion, british heritage, culture and traditions.
Put this subversive rubbish infront of 60 Million people for long enough and what we see happening to our society should come as no surprise.

We as a people are under an orchestrated attack.

20 June 2009 at 20:53  
Blogger Andromeda said...

Len - It is indeed the case that the Koran accepts that Mary was a virgin while denying that Jesus is divine. This is mere politics, you see. The Koran claims it is the superior and final version of monotheism but knows it must not alienate the Christians it is trying to convert.

There are also many references to the Jews, who are cast as people who believe that the benefit of an only omnipotent God is reserved only for the Chosen People.

"If you believe this to be so, then why don't you go and join your maker right now?" the Koran asks them mockingly.

Judaism is basically race-based.

Christianity tries to be more inclusive and says it is faith-based.

The Koran proclaims its universal message is reason-based, which is yet more inclusive than the two previous versons.

Adrian P - It is quite clear that Mary Whitehouse anticipated this problem during her lifetime but was only mocked for her troubles.

Thank goodness then for the Muslims, who regard it as a religious duty to challenge the triumph of feminism, pornography, promiscuity in our society.

If you really want to fight these, Adrian, the quickest way is to do it using Islamic principles.

21 June 2009 at 08:35  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I don't think any religion can proclaim to be reason based.

The very nature of belief requires the absence of reasoning.

21 June 2009 at 10:48  
Blogger Andromeda said...

In response to The Glovner's comment, may I just say that the Koran does, by its many exhortations to its readers to use their God-given reason.

The correct question to ask is:

Is it reasonable to have faith?

I would answer that in the affirmative, even if it is only faith in the future.

If we do not have faith in the future, we should just all kill ourselves rather than apathetically carrying on, too spiritually weak to either live positively or too indecisive to end it all once and for all, to show we have no faith in the future.

21 June 2009 at 10:55  
Anonymous len said...

Andromeda, Islam like any other religion places restraints on the fallen nature of man trying to restrain his fallen nature and impulses to do evil.The Apostle Paul sums up this struggle perfectly in Romans 7, describing having the will to do good but finding he has the inability to carry it out.
Yahweh God changes us from the inside( Gives us a new spirit).
Religion will always fail because you are trying to live up to a high moral standard with a corrupt spirit.
All religion works through fear- fear of retribution.

21 June 2009 at 12:14  
Blogger Andromeda said...

While I agree with Len that an omnipotent God is the means through which Man is to fear retribution, my point is that the Koran is a shorter and clearer instruction manual to avoid God's wrath in the next life and to keep well and safe in this.

21 June 2009 at 16:28  
Anonymous len said...

Jesus Christ bore Gods wrath here on the cross at Calvary for fallen mankind.
Jesus Christ stood in your place and bore the punishment for your sins.

If you have led a perfect life you will have no problems with God, but if you have committed one sin you have broken Gods entire law and outside of Christ you will bear the consequences yourself.
God says the soul who sins will die, Jesus Christ stood in your place and bore your sins , if you reject this God will hold you liable for your own sins.
God is perfect love , but he is perfect justice he cannot overlook sin.
Christianity is the only 'religion'
that has a savior,in every other religion you have to be your own savior.
God says "Be perfect as I am perfect" ( Matthew 5:48)can you honestly claim that?
1 John 5:11,
And this is the testimony :that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
He who has the Son has life;he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

21 June 2009 at 19:38  
Blogger Andromeda said...

The Koran says, very simply and succinctly, that for those who believe in God and do good works - they shall not fear nor shall they grieve.

21 June 2009 at 22:37  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

So if you are good according to some rules that were written by man (which are generally common sense and common decency) then you won't burn and be totured for all time when you die.

Yup, ruling through fear, it's been doing it for two thousand years and it's still doing it now, although not as effectively which is why there are other fears being put out there every day to control the masses.

Fear the diseases that are coming to kill us all.
Fear the terrorists that are going to get you.

Lot of nonsense, all of it.

22 June 2009 at 14:06  
Blogger Andromeda said...

The theory behind monotheism is that if we believe in God and an afterlife, we would be more likely to be good, risking death, injury and loss to do what pleases God.

I am sure there are many atheists who behave courageously and honourably simply because that is what they feel compelled to do, rather than submit to the God of Expediency.

22 June 2009 at 14:13  
Anonymous len said...

" The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand and seek Yahweh God."( Psalm 14:2)

23 June 2009 at 11:02  
Blogger srizals said...

Jesus Christ bore Gods wrath here on the cross at Calvary for fallen mankind.
Jesus Christ stood in your place and bore the punishment for your sins.

Len, what r u sayin exactly, that he had an abusive father that like to take on his children when he is in the bad mood or somethin over the attitude of the world? Come on man get real.
N U R sayin that Muhammad had friends, knowledgeable of their faith n decided 2 share with him, since he was an Arab n goin 2 claimed that he was the last prophet, right?

U like 2 play that guessin card don't u, ok, lets play it. Muhammad is saying he is the prophet sent to the Arabs, sorry, to all mankind, as a mercy from Allah 2 all mankind to make it clear right,
Erm, why don't anyone or more than anyone, be it The Secretive Jewish or Corrupted Christians (I'm usin ur words) didn't claimed the same? The Pagans sure would not, they r afraid of their Idols. Why wasn't there anyone beside Muhammad, came cookin the same story? Well, his was more bizarre since he claimed he was the last prophet, not just for the Arabs, but 4 all mankind. Did the Arabs even realized the existence of us, the Malays in the far of asian countries? U claimed that ur sailors discovered the new world right?
Were there any warnings from the Jewish community or the Old Christians cult, whatsoever, mentioning that Muhammad, the illiterate, had somehow stolen their holy books n read them?, (Were there even books at that time?) n tortured their holy men 2 spit out the truth n everythin of their religion n copied it in such a way n improved it better than theirs? Did he had better understandings than the rabbis n the christian saints back in the old days, about 1,400 years ago?
Were there such writings, or news, be it, in the form of whispers handed down through generations or written in some secret codes, like the Da Vinci code or somethin, Come on Len, don't leave reason behind, than everything is not even worth mentioning.

14 July 2009 at 00:38  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older