Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Why does UNISON subsidise the abortion industry?

His Grace has received quite literally hundreds of emails, tweets and DMs over the past few days – very many of them unpleasant and personally abusive, and almost all of them misunderstanding the proposed Dorries/Field amendment to the forthcoming Health and Social Care Bill, or purposely seeking to misrepresent it.

If His Grace’s email box is anything to go by, it is the opinion of many that a woman’s womb is nothing to do with the Government. It is a curious proposition, leaving the woman to do with her ‘foetus’ whatever she wishes, presumably right up to the point of birth. The ‘religious nutters’ like Nadine Dorries should butt out, they say, and leave the enlightened, progressive, ‘pro-choice’ politicians to do the right thing. And then, of course, we arrive at a point where women may not even be selected as parliamentary candidates unless they are sponsored by Emily’s List, which ensures that Labour’s green benches are packed with abortion-supporting women, thereby creating an inbuilt pro-abortion majority in perpetuity.

If the Roman Catholic Church were to do that, to attempt to gerrymander a hint of ‘Pro-life’ bias, there would be uproar.

But if a woman’s womb is nothing to do with the Government, what concern is it of a trade union?

It appears that UNISON (amongst other unions) finance the 'Pro-choice' group known as 'Abortion Rights'. Why is this? Why should 'religious nutters' be barred from propagating their dogma while political activists are free to spout their ideology? Abortion Rights say of themselves:
We are an active membership-based democratic campaigning organisation. In additional to individual members, we are delighted to have the support of NUS and civil society organisations as well as the TUC and national trade unions including AMICUS , ASLEF , CWU , FBU , NAPO , PCS , RMT , T&G , TSSA , UCU , UNISON , trade union regions, branches, sections and individual trade unionists.
The manner and form of this ‘support’ is nowhere disclosed, but it would be a fair bet that in some cases it is financial. Abortion Rights do choose to reveal:
We would like to thank The Feminist Review Trust , UNISON's General Political Fund, and Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust for the generous financial support they have made towards our campaigning activities.
Generous financial support? Do UNISON members know their subscriptions are being used in this way?

We are not simply talking here about maintaining women’s current rights on abortion, or promoting their welfare in the workplace, both of which may be considered wholly proper pursuits for a trade union. No, Abortion Rights seek to go much further:
We are campaigning to defend and extend women's rights and access to safe, legal abortion. We oppose any attack on the 1967 Abortion Act including any attempt to lower the abortion time limit. 40 years after the introduction of safe, legal abortion in Britain women's rights should be advanced not driven back. A consistent three quarters of people support a woman's right to choose in Britain. We believe the law should be brought into line with public opinion - so that women can make their own reproductive decisions without the current unfair legal barriers, obstructions and delays.
Presumably, they seek even to abolish the need for the consent of two doctors before a baby is terminated. Whilst reiterating (once again) that the Dorries/Field amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill interferes with none of the legal rights already established, Abortion Rights are actively campaigning to oppose the move, portraying it at as ‘anti-choice’ amendment (the strategy revealed yesterday).

So why are trades unions supporting the aggressive tactics of Abortion Rights? And why is UNISON doing so with ‘generous financial support’? The union declares unequivocally on its own website: ‘UNISON is affiliated to Abortion Rights’.

To be affiliated is to be attached, connected, associated (literally, ‘adopted as a son’).

His Grace knows quite a few Roman Catholics who refuse to support charitable events like Red Nose Day because some of the money raised goes to fund abortion provision in the developing world. Fair enough. But by the same standard, how may any Roman Catholic be a member of UNISON when they are ‘affiliated' to Abortion Rights? Indeed, how may any Christian who is concerned with the issue of abortion help to finance a trade union which actively supports a group dedicated to ending all ‘legal barriers, obstructions and delays’?

Pope Benedict XVI has called abortion a ‘crime of aggression not only against the unborn, but also against society’. It is, he says, ‘never a solution’. Moreover, the decriminalising of abortion is a ' betrayal of democracy’ against which all Christians should make a stand.

According to the Vatican, abortion is the primary issue 'because it negates two of our most fundamental moral imperatives: respect for innocent life, and preferential concern for the weak and defenceless'.

It is not the business of His Grace to direct his readers or communicants on any issue of conscience: he is Anglican, and holds that believers may bring their own reasoning faculties to Scripture and interpret it in accordance with Christian tradition.

But it is inconceivable to him that a Christian who prioritises the issue of abortion could be a member of UNISON, which is in a self-declared partnership with Abortion Rights not merely to sustain the status quo but to extend abortion provision and advance the cause of those who wish to terminate the unborn. Individual union members have NO CHOICE about this: their subscriptions are handed over regardless of their personal beliefs.

From the information in the public domain and presented here, it is His Grace’s considered opinion that membership of UNISON (and other unions which subsidise or ‘support’ the work of Abortion Rights) is certainly incompatible with the traditions and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Is it not time for a mass exodus?


Blogger tangentreality said...

Your Grace is once again correct. What a woman does with her own uterus should be considered her own business, and nobody elses's, including the State - and including any other organisation, including unions.

31 August 2011 at 09:34  
Blogger RubyWiz said...

Quite so Your Grace

Unison members facing redundancies might well ask why their money is going to fund organisations whose raison d'etre is the destruction of unborn human life.

In a teaching career spanning much of the last 35 years I can say that adolescents engage in a much more nuanced and balanced way with the issues surrounding and implications of, abortion than adult so-called 'Pro-Choice' protagonists.

But, like certain other subjects, abortion seems to lead to the destruction of people's logic. However strongly my students felt about abortion, they did not need to brand their classmates 'religious nutters' or 'baby-murderers' for taking views oppposed to their own.

They were able to see that facing an unplanned pregnancy was a dilemma of huge proportions; and they were able to accept that in some circumstances ending it might be a reasonable option but that continuing the pregnancy was not the end-of-the-world scenario painted by so many pro-choicers.

The eminently reasonable voices of Frank Field and Nadine Dorries who want women facing unplanned pregancy to have the opportunity to think about it, however, are increasingly being drowned out by their well-funded opponents.

This tactic - shouting down your opponents - is one that campaigners, particularly on the left, are employing more and more in this country.

And funding, from the look of it!

31 August 2011 at 09:44  
Blogger whitespacebug said...

As a Unison member, no, I had no idea about this, and while I remain in favour of legal abortion, I shall certainly look into this.

Did you mean a mass exodus from Unison, or from the Roman Catholic Church? I've already done the latter.

31 August 2011 at 10:10  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Isn't it a shame that you are forced to quote the leadership of the Church of Rome to find a robust defense of the life of unborn children. Or, indeed, on any other issue of moral importance.

But on the matter in hand: I'm not sure that a Christian can be truly comfortable belonging to any of the main unions. The socialist mindset is decidedly 'anti-Christ'; it is the law of the Mob (as Ann Coulter points out). That is why anyone who beats them by force of argument (quite an easy thing to do - especially on the issue of killing unborn children) becomes subject to the sort of vitriolic personal attack you are now familiar with. Their problem is more spiritual than political. It is a spirit of death - quite literally.

31 August 2011 at 10:32  
Blogger Matt Wardman said...

Personally, I think the response to hate mail should be the same as to bullying letters from libel lawyers - publish them, preferably the lot.

31 August 2011 at 10:34  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

What worries me most about this debate is the way that it seems to be forcing people (myself including) to the increasingly extreme fringes of opinion.

I have generally tended to support the provision of abortion, on the principle that in extremis it may be a necessary evil. It seems to me to be better to have a legal means of carrying out "safer" abortions in particular circumstances than a wholesale ban. As I live in Northern Ireland, where there is no such option, this has meant I usually fall in with the pro-abortion groups.

However, something about the rhetoric of some of those groups leaves me distinctly unnerved. I do not believe, for instance, that abortion should ever be pushed as liberating women. For the most part this is simply not true - most women faced with the choice of aborting a child are not liberated by the experience. Very often the "choice" is no choice at all - especially in extreme cases like rape. So even from a feminist perspective, I don't feel that women who are placed in a very vulnerable position are being adequately supported by the rhetoric of pro-abortion groups.

The Dorries/Field suggestion on counselling seems to me to be profoundly more compassionate and humane.

I also have real problems on how abortion is used - and it is very hard to get those problems to even register with pro-abortion peers. I have often raised the fact that abortion in countries like India has been used prejudicially against women as a means of selecting men. I have also raised the disturbing fact that in this country, abortion is increasingly used for the systematic annihilation of the disabled, the flawed, and even those perceived as being ugly. To little avail.

I have always tried to hold to the view that one can in principle support the provision of abortion (retaining the medical checks) without celebrating it, or without unthinkingly arguing that abortion is, in all circumstances, an ethical course. I also don't see how adoption is mutually exclusive with abortion.

But many of my peers, particularly the most vocal ones, do not agree. In fact, for them, such reflection is tantamount to treasonous behaviour. To even invoke a consideration of the ethics of abortion is to deny, for them, an entirely entrenched believe in the absolute sanctity of a woman's ownership of her body. I am not intrinsicaly hostile to that belief - but neither can I fully accept that it trumps all other ethical and moral considerations.

This unthinking rhetoric is leaving me increasingly feeling forced out of pro-abortion arguments, because in the final score, I'm afraid I value the sanctity and respect for life (including disabled life) higher than reproductive rights. I want to have a debate without the two being regarded as mutually exclusive, but this seems to be increasingly hard.

31 August 2011 at 10:57  
Blogger BettyNoir said...

Well done for plugging away at this issue. I wish you every success.

31 August 2011 at 12:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Abortion is the unyielding guarantor of the sexual revolution, and the sexual revolution is the organizing principle of the modern Western world. It allows a woman to break the 'tyranny of biology' and sever her sexuality from maternity. Without abortion, the burdens of the sexual revolution would fall heavily on women. They would seek to restore the old sexual boundaries in response. This is why the fight is so bitter. At a very deep level it's about the place of maternity in a woman's life. The modern world would say "Children are an option and no more. The purpose of your life is to fulfill yourself." It is a selfish and self-centered ethic that would murder its own children for the sake of personal gratification.

And it's the principle reason why within 100 years the West as we know it will be no more.


31 August 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger albion said...

Well said, Carl Jacobs - and good comments on that Australian blog 'Anglicans Down Under'. Where do you find the patience to engage people who think the answer to failure is to try the same things again?

31 August 2011 at 13:12  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Your Grace, well done for your continued campaign on this issue. I refuse to contribute to my Union's "Political Fund" and will now look into whether any portion of my membership dues is assigned to issues such as this.

I agree entirely with the comment earlier that belonging to a Union is now a matter of choice between Christian Principle and Gospel Imperative and Secular Socialism and anti-moral standard. Christian's do need to consider their continued membership carefully.

The vitriol and the personal attacks reflect the lack of moral foundation and perhaps the personal lack of any code of ethics by the perpetrators. The Dorries/Field amendment is entirely sensible and ethical. All it does is remove the counseling from those providing abortions - for which they are handsomely paid, let us not forget that! That, in itself, accounts for the vitriolic rantings of the pro-abortionists, any reduction in abortions will cost them a lot of money.

31 August 2011 at 13:20  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Well said!

The ordained relationship between male and female is presented in Genesis - equal but different.

This relationship has, of course, to be given a modern meaning but regardless, surely fundamental to it, is mutual reponsibility for children - from conception.

The modern economy requires a female workforce and families today faced with the burdens of providing a home for themselves and their children find both partners must work. This inevitably means some form of 'family planning'. Enter the 'contra'-ception pill (a misnomer) and abortion.

Is it coincidental that the 'feminist revolution' coincided with the development of modern, global mass consumption capitalism and the promotion of a 'property owning' society? A culture of hedonism and avarice to support the 'growth'.

The 'sexual revolution', the breaking of the relationship between sex as a unitive act between a man and a woman intended to conceive new life, has fatally undermined Christianity in the West. Life long family relationships are no longer the norm. Parents divorce, if they have been married, and children are raised either by single mothers or by a series of temporary men.

The answer?

God alone knows! Let us pray He guides our opinion informers and politicians.

31 August 2011 at 13:38  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

RubyWiz said ...

"But, like certain other subjects, abortion seems to lead to the destruction of people's logic."

A 'logic' based on what fundamental premises?

Christian principles based on the Gospel? Or secular, moral relativism?

31 August 2011 at 13:50  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 August 2011 at 13:57  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

"According to the Vatican, abortion is the primary issue 'because it negates two of our most fundamental moral imperatives: respect for innocent life, and preferential concern for the weak and defenceless'."

"It is not the business of His Grace to direct his readers or communicants on any issue of conscience: he is Anglican, and holds that believers may bring their own reasoning faculties to Scripture and interpret it in accordance with Christian tradition."

Summed up in two paragraphs the difference between Rome's leadership and Anglican individualism in matters scriptual.

31 August 2011 at 14:01  
Blogger Albert said...

Quite right, Dr Cranmer. A Catholic should not be part of UNISON for the reasons you give. It is interesting to see that some of the money the pro-death camp gets is obtained by stealth.

It is not the business of His Grace to direct his readers or communicants on any issue of conscience: he is Anglican, and holds that believers may bring their own reasoning faculties to Scripture and interpret it in accordance with Christian tradition.

And what is Christian tradition on this matter? And if it comes to that, has Anglicanism always allowed freedom of conscience on this question, or is it just a modern thing?

31 August 2011 at 15:31  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Can one withhold a proportion of one's taxes that funds the State sanctioned murder of these innocent and helpless victims?

As a member of the Transport and General Worker's Union I withhold the political levy. I will now check whether any other funding goes to the pro-death lobby.

Can one be a committed Christian, Catholic, Anglican or other, and agree to abortion whatever the particular circumstances?

31 August 2011 at 16:09  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

whitespacebug said...
"Did you mean a mass exodus from Unison, or from the Roman Catholic Church?"

Or maybe the Anglican Communion?

31 August 2011 at 16:16  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

UNISON flags are always flying on the UAF side at EDL rallies.

Commies love genociding the innocents, like Herod.

31 August 2011 at 16:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

RubyWiz: "The eminently reasonable voices of Frank Field and Nadine Dorries who want women facing unplanned pregancy to have the opportunity to think about it, however, are increasingly being drowned out by their well-funded opponents."

Who's funding the RightToKnow and maintaining its associated limited company through a solicitor's address. They're very carefully not saying on their website. Could it be the organisation that was reported in various places to have set up Dorries' last campaign in this area? I'd like to know.

31 August 2011 at 17:47  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - the feminist revolution came well after consumerism. The Model T was produced "for the great multitude" after all. Additionally, the British empire was a huge force for globalisation and the development of global trade.

Your placement of "growth" in inverted commas is reminiscent of extreme environmentalists. The consumer society, the free market, a lively, free exchange of ideas and the scientific method have contributed to the political and economic ascendancy of the west and we should be grateful for them.

From your point, can we assume that you have only ever had sex with a view to procreating? If you have ever had sex just for the sheer fun of it, aren't you in fact part of the hedonism you abhor?

31 August 2011 at 18:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

On the most important posts here is Carl Jacobs' (31 August 2011 12:55) of whose contributions I am now an avid reader. It is difficult to fault the man’s logic.

“And it's the principle reason why within 100 years the West as we know it will be no more.”

I fear abortion will continue until there are no more English to abort ! A race of people who brought western civilisation to a quarter of the world brought down by socialist, “enlightened” and “progressive” policies. By our own hand - and we must blame ourselves in the UK for allowing them to do this. The English will lose control of the cities, and it’s the cities that call the shots...

31 August 2011 at 19:05  
Blogger Solent Ramblings said...

As an active UNISON member, I'm saddened to discover that my union finances Pro-Choice.

As a local rep, I am working with the Branch to get more members as I believe unions have much to give employees and employers.

UNISON has done things that I've not agreed with. But they've not been matters of conscience. This is.

I've asked my Branch Secretary to give me a categorical assurance, if he can, that no part of my subscription will finance Pro Choice. If he can't give it, then I've asked him to immediately terminate my membership.

31 August 2011 at 19:44  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


I do believe we've encountered one another before but you were using a different ID as is your priviledge. It would help if you read my posts properly before reacting.

You will note I referred to modern capitalism. Surely you're not disputing this is of a different order to that of the early 20th Century? Think about it and if you want to debate this further then I'm happy to do so.

You've also misunderstood or are diliberately misrepresenting my point about sexual relationships. Again, have a proper read and you'll see I believe there is a unitive dimension (fun, in your terms) as well as a procreative diminsion to sexual relations between a married couple.

31 August 2011 at 20:19  
Blogger Gavin said...

I applaud and admire Your Grace for tacking this issue. How on earth can Mr Field & Ms Dorries' detractors seek to term the proposed Bill "anti-choice" when it is clear that the exact opposite is intended?
OK, it can be argued that any Christian-based counselling service would, by virtue of its principles, probably seek to steer a client away from the option of abortion if at all possible. However, equally so, the counselling services of Marie Stopes would, by virtue of its clear-cut profit-motive, probably seek to steer a client towards the option of abortion if at all possible. And so, one could say that a better level of balance would be achieved in itself, merely by making these two different sources of counselling available. After all, that is how all good debate is carried out: You have a speaker for one side, and a speaker for the opposing side, and the chairperson tries to allow them equal time to speak on the issue, before the vote is taken. The very act of allowing the opposing sides to debate is the thing that facilitates the 'choice'. If the chairperson ruled that only one speaker may present his case and the other must be barred, then that would be 'anti-choice'.
So Ms Dorries' adversaries have chosen a completely stupid and clearly illogical phrase to use as their media sound-bite.

I am also reassured by His Grace's thoughtful catholic Anglican position re the application of scripure, and I understand that his comments re the Vatican are especially relevant to Roman Catholics, because the RC church has a sort of unspoken traditional association with the Labour movement, as has the CoE with the Conservative party, and so many of the trade union members are likely to be RC's. So I take on board the context of HG's words, knowing that they are intended to be instructive rather than divisive.

31 August 2011 at 22:08  
Blogger Gavin said...

I'm still thinking about His Grace's fourth-last paragraph.
I see no real need for His Grace to distance himself from P. Benedict's unequivocal utterances merely because B. is the Pope and HG is Anglican. (though I'm not saying that is the reason HG does so, or even that he does so at all).

But, would not Archbishop Thomas Cranmer have every right, by virtue of his position as a Bishop of the church, ordained as such by the Holy Spirit, to direct his flock in such matters of conscience, drawing upon his learned knowledge and powers of reasoning and applying these to the scripture? As Paul says, some are called to be teachers, some prophets, some apostles (etc). While it's true that everyone may read and use their intellect to interpret the scriptures, surely a Bishop of the church, be he RC or Anglican, has a specially ordained ministry to preach and to utter specific guidance? Should +Rowan Williams merely state "each person should study scripture and decide for themselves on this issue"? No, I would like to look to him for learned specific guidance as much as I look to Pope Benedict.

31 August 2011 at 22:42  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Gavin,

His Grace thanks you for your contributions today. But please do not misrepresent his view by partially quoting him. You ask:

'Should +Rowan Williams merely state "each person should study scripture and decide for themselves on this issue"?'

Yet His Grace clearly wrote: "...and holds that believers may bring their own reasoning faculties to Scripture and interpret it in accordance with Christian tradition."

There is no Anglican 'free for all', as you suggest: to omit 'in accordance with Christian tradition' is to misrepresent (or misunderstand) Anglican orthodoxy.

31 August 2011 at 22:50  
Blogger Gavin said...

Thank you for your clarification, YG, and I do apologise, for I did not mean to deliberately misrepresent your words, nor to be intentionally provocative.

By reasserting and re-emphasising the words which I had ommitted, however, I find that Your Grace's statement is in no way different to the 'RC' position re scripture (as far as I understand it, and I admit that my understanding is probably inferior to yours, Your Grace). What I read in everday language here, is something like: "Each person is free to read, study and contemplate scripture, and to seek individual guidance about it from the Holy Spirit through prayer, whilst also deferring to and consulting the Church's interpretation (which, after all, has been arrived at in much the same way)".

Now IF I have broadly understood your paragraph correctly, then I don't see all that much difference between it and traditional RC teaching, and therefore I didn't quite see the need for you to draw a distinction between the different churches.
I'm basically trying to comprehend the huge chasm between the RC position of "scripture plus tradition" and the Anglican position of "Sola Scriptura". I am well rehearsed in the usual arguments, but in this instance, my immediate reaction to YG's paragraph was: "that's precisely what we RC's would say too!" So it seems that the difference goes deeper than mere words, it's so confusing. But please be assured that I meant no harm or disrespect, YG. And I'm sorry for going off-topic on this thread.

31 August 2011 at 23:24  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

I wonder if you might care to comment on Mr Gavin's suggestion your are drawing his readers attention to the Roman Catholic Church's association with the Labour Party and trade unionship?

It would be good to know too if you were, in fact, distancing yourself from the Roman Catholic Church dogmatic position on abortion?

On both the above I drew no such understanding although, as you know, I can be obtuse!

Your clarification on the role of Anglican leaders to maintain tradition and to give scriptural reasons for beliefs, was very brief. Do senior Anglican clerics speak on behalf with the authority of whole Church on serious moral issues, or on their own authority? Is there any authoritative Anglican doctrine on abortion, homosexuality, co-habitation etc?

31 August 2011 at 23:50  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Sorry typo error.

"Do senior Anglican clerics speak on behalf of the whole Church with the authority of that of that Church, or on their own authority?"

31 August 2011 at 23:53  
Blogger Gavin said...

Anyway, I wish to draw a line under the 'off-topicness' which I introduced here, and to agree wholeheartedly with His Grace that every Christian ought to question their membership of any trade union which directs part of its funds towards abortion service providers. And as a Roman Catholic myself, I wish to denounce and repudiate this unspoken association between the RC church and "the Labour movement" in general. I don't know how it has come about or how it has progressed, but I see very little in common between the founding principles of RC'ism and the Labour Party. Labour is, by its very foundations, a pseudo-communist, Marxist, and therefore godless and essentially anti-Christian movement. Its rank and file membership is filled with vehement anti-Christian sentiment. This particular Roman Catholic hates and detests everything to do with the Labour Party and its vile Unions and nasty "political correctness". I'm Catholic, Conservative, and I love my country and respect the authority of its Established Reformed Church.

31 August 2011 at 23:55  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 September 2011 at 00:35  
Blogger Solent Ramblings said...

Gavin, I think you fear needlessly about the "unspoken association between the RC church and the Labour movement" in this well mannered discussion on an often fraught, emotional subject.

Most(Roman) Catholics and Anglicans have moved on from the suspicions of old to a sincere search for what unites us.

We might go back to our own fold after a discussion still baffled by what we've heard. But we know that we can confidently go back to a warm welcome, no matter how impatient we might get with each other at times.

Thus, as a (Roman) Catholic myself, I'm tremendously encouraged that our host, the good Archbishop, quotes Pope Benedict with such approval as I suspect he would not have done before his untimely death.

I'm grateful for his clarion call to those outside his fold on such an important matter. I applaud his courage in patiently persisting, despite the unpleasant and abusive emails he's received.

1 September 2011 at 01:04  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Solent Rambling

How very right you are and I'd like to whole heartedly agree with you in supporting our host.

Other issues can await another time and not distract from the grevious topic of abortion and making available professional, independent couselling to woman beforehand.

1 September 2011 at 01:12  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 September 2011 at 01:24  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

"His Grace knows quite a few Roman Catholics who refuse to support charitable events like Red Nose Day because some of the money raised goes to fund abortion provision in the developing world."

Interesting ...

If Christians feel compelled to leave Trade Unions should they also withdraw support from Red Nose Day, Children in Need and the National Lottery on the same basis?

1 September 2011 at 01:27  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

The comment that religious groups should not be involved in counselling is a dangerous one. It suggests that religion should be peripheral to society and this is very much the thrust of many institutions in our society. We have had decades now to assess the secularizing trend in society and clearly it is not working so we need to rethink. Unfortunately the left wing has become very adept at phrasing its language to sound democratic and lots of people fall for it. In the context of the Dorries/Field amendment, we have to accept as earlier stated that no-one is impartial. That's part of being human. Let's recognise that and have both sides presented.

1 September 2011 at 01:31  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Man with No Name, You raise an interesting questions about contributions to Red Nose Day, Children in Need and the National Lottery because some of the money goes to support anti-christian policies. Should Christians withdraw support for these organizations because of this? Absolutely. There are lots of other charitable organizations which do not promote anti-christian policies. Jesus said we cannot serve two masters.

1 September 2011 at 01:39  
Blogger Albert said...

Dr Cranmer,

'in accordance with Christian tradition'

The trouble is, I find myself asking where in the Christian tradition is it acceptable to abort the unborn? Indeed, what is the Scriptural basis for the view? Granted, the Bible has nothing directly to say about the modern problem of abortion, but it is very clear on the dignity of the unborn child (e.g. the Annunciation, Visitation and a variety of references to being known in the womb etc.).

So shouldn't the CofE admit either (a) Abortion should be condemned as contrary to scripture and tradition, or (b) the CofE is no longer committed to scripture and tradition.

Rowan Williams seems pretty sound on abortion after all (but then even General Synod doesn't listen to him, poor man - perhaps he'd like to become a Catholic).

1 September 2011 at 11:05  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Perhaps Mr Cranmer should consider this too?

I think abortion is one of the central issues that defines one's faith at this time in our history. I also believe the 'contra'-conception pill is too.

'Modernists' within the Roman Catholic Church have attempted to 'liberalise' certain aspects of Church doctrine. Thank God the Pope and the Magisterium stood firm. Abortion, including use of the 'contra'-ception pill, is a grevious evil and cannot be acceptable.

1 September 2011 at 11:29  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - I've only ever used one nom de plume on this site - mine. Jon. We've encountered each other before, but only ever as Jon. There's no conspiracy theory there for you, I'm afraid.

I read your stuff before commenting. I seriously weigh up whether it's worth my time to do so, and it's sentences like this:

Is it coincidental that the 'feminist revolution' coincided with the development of modern, global mass consumption capitalism and the promotion of a 'property owning' society? A culture of hedonism and avarice to support the 'growth'.

Which get my goat. What were the 1930s? What was Edwardian England? I'm sure you would call these times of hedonism but your singular focus upon your issues blinkers you to anything outside of your world view. Open your eyes - the world didn't go to pot because of the pill - it was screwed well before that! You're clearly a smart person, you must be able to see that?

It's fine to peddle an agenda. HG is doing a great job of exposing one group peddling theirs, and their selective interpretation of facts in doing so, in today's post.

Don't let's fall into the same trap, eh?

1 September 2011 at 11:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo, absolutely right on abortion and contraception. It is the "liberation" of sexuality from fruitful union of marriage that is at the heart of all this. I wonder why more Protestants don't see contraception as part of the evil.

1 September 2011 at 11:33  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


Okay, please acept my apologies.

The world has been fallen since the inception of time. That's the way it is. However, it does appear to be accelerating in its willingness to embrace evil.

My essential point is that modern capitalism has developed the capacity to manipulate people into wanting more and more. Big muli-national corporations, the international money markets, mass media advertising etc all sell an image of a lifestyle that is hedonistic and self centred.

Debt, necessary to sustain continuing acquisition of ever more 'necessities', enslaves people. The desire for a house of one's own, very reasonable in itself, added to the wish for more than one car per household, for more and more gadgets, all promoted by modern capitalism as essential 'needs', means both men and women must work. To keep going capitalism has to continually create new demand.

All this required a fundamental shift in attitudes towards the role of women and towards family life. Children are now attending state provided nurseries from the age of three. Subsidised breakfast clubs and after school meal clubs are replacing family meals. There's even information now that it costs in excess of £200k to raise a child!

Enter the pill ....

1 September 2011 at 12:23  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...


The 'contra'ception pill is no more than an early form of abortion and Christians should be opposed to following the same moral principle as abortion i.e. it is a moral evil.

Do people know what the pill actually does? Do they care?

1 September 2011 at 12:32  
Blogger len said...

We live in a 'sick Society'even Politicians are beginning to accept this.
But why cannot they see that they have contributed to 'the sickness 'by their 'progressive' laws.
Even the question of whether abortion is 'right or wrong' shows the level of depravity and the lack of any morals Society has.
We live in a 'rights based' culture however the only rights that seem to concern most individuals are their 'own' rights

4 September 2011 at 08:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older