Wednesday, June 11, 2014

The abomination of judicially-enforced abortion


Lord Justice Munby - Head of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales - has featured a number of times on His Grace's blog over recent years. He is the "self-regarding, pompous, publicity-seeking pillock" who says the law of this country is secular, and that Christianity no longer informs its morality or values. He has also declared that "secular judges" ought not to view the precepts of one faith as any higher than those of another, and that sexual ethics have nothing at all to do with Christian belief.

And now, not content with insisting that "problem parents" ought to be forced by the courts to use contraception to prevent "repetitive pregnancies", Sir James Munby has forced a 13-year-old girl to have an abortion.

The President of the Family Division of the High Court seemingly has the power to order the destruction of a baby in the womb.

Yes, we are told that the girl was "very damaged", "impaired", "largely out of control", and has an IQ of just 54. And yes, we are also told that the father of this child was just 14 years old, and manifestly reckless and irresponsible.

But the court was informed that she "initially wanted to keep her baby". She might have wavered on this, but what 13-year-old wouldn't? In any case, Social Services thought the pregnancy inappropriate, so they asked the High Court to decide whether it ought to be allowed to continue.

And Sir James Munby, the anti-family High Priest of Secularism, ruled that an abortion was in her best interests: "Leaving to one side her own wishes and feelings, the preponderance of all the evidence is clear that it would be in her best interests to have a termination," he decreed.

"Leaving to one side her own wishes and feelings"?

Do we now live in a country where one's IQ determines whether "wishes and feelings" ought to be taken into account? We're not talking here about whether she would like her bedroom painted orange or pink; we're talking about a baby - a new human life. Surely if a pregnant girl lacks the capacity to decide matters for herself, the unborn baby has the right to an advocate?

But Lord Justice Munby determined that if the girl were allowed to give birth there would be "very little chance" she would be allowed to keep her child.

So what about adoption? Is that not preferable to termination?

Does a girl with an IQ of 54 and the vocabulary of a six-year-old not still think and feel? Is an enforced abortion not still potentially greatly injurious - physically, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually?

But, of course, in Lord Justice Munby's aggressively secular world, there is no moral code but that which is pragmatic and accords with human rights; there is nothing spiritual to consider. And the physical, emotional and psychological must be subsumed to the utilitarian imperative. This girl would not have a "full understanding of what the pregnancy would involve", and so it's in her "best interests" to abort the child.

Does any woman really have a "full understanding" of what pregnancy involves before they have carried a baby to full term and finally given birth?

Does any man ever have a "full understanding" of what pregnancy involves?

Do only those with an 'acceptable' IQ have the right to be pregnant?

What if this girl had been Roman Catholic?

Since Lord Justice Munby is of the view that “the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form”, we know the answer. He is persuaded that "reliance upon religious belief, however conscientious the belief and however ancient and respectable the religion, can never of itself immunise the believer from the reach of the secular law".

In this brave new secular world, everything is rendered first unto Caesar, in whose honour our babies are routinely sacrificed - even against the wishes and feelings of the half-witted mother.

75 Comments:

Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Anybody with a modicum of humanity must be horrified with a judicial system that seems to solely serve the purposes of an unfeeling, impersonal machine of state.

Ernst has known such an individual as the young person stated..Not the sharpest knife in the drawer was young Kirk but you try and short change him and all hell would break loose. This world assumes the worth of an individual not by his/her being a valued part of humanity but whether they conform to the standards of the numpty passing judgment on their intellect or lack of it.

The last thread discussed extremism and how we all supposedly should be on our guard against it, yet Ernst sees no extremist Hindu, Sikhs, Jews, Christians in our midst but only the peerless Secularist and whining Islamists. The fear to state the bleed'n obvious is apparent and shames our nation.

Most people tarred with the 'extremist' brush such as EDL etc are hardly who you would call as Sunday churchgoers, who would struggle to mention no more than 4 books of the New Testament and yet..and yet all the Islamists that espouse terrorism or forcing through extremism at schools are ardent mosque goers.

This should be screaming out at the deluded secularist that frequent here but as the agenda does not allow for reasoned views, it falls on barren ground..Their 'intellect' cannot handle simple discernment as Herman Munby shows with his size 24 jackboots.

Blofeld...too old and damned tired of it all

11 June 2014 09:47  
Blogger Jack Jones the butcher said...

It was a bit of a worry to see Booker, in his admirable campaign against state-sanctioned child stealing in the UK (all over the west), hold this prat up as a symbol of probity and all that is good. Mylud obviously practised anti-family law and would know that the only way the brethren make their money is to steal other people's kiddies. Let's hope some deadly disease comes drifting his way!

11 June 2014 09:47  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 June 2014 09:56  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

If the girl has the mental age of a seven year old then its hardly likely that she has the capacity to make any informed decisions.

Clearly she didn't apply consequential knowing consent when the fourteen year old lad caused the pregnancy.

The religious moralist would no doubt condemn the very concept of abortion which is fair enough in late to mid-term. But its not that simple; leaving aside Cranmer's dislike of this judge there are practical issues for all of society, implied by decisions like this.

The whole abortion 'industry' is in deep need of review.

The future for the girl, the boy and most importantly for the baby if it is allowed to live has to be considered, not forgetting the impact on families (if they even care),of the children at the centre of this sad story.

11 June 2014 10:01  
Blogger David Hussell said...

An excellent article, Your Grace, that nails the lie of the caring, compassionate secularist society. These activist judges are a menace to all that is decent in this country. When judges define morality, their own invented morality, great harm is wrought on the nation.


Jack Jones the butcher @ 09.47

I have wondered lately just where the Booker that we thought we knew has gone.

11 June 2014 10:04  
Blogger Len said...

This secular humanist judge personifies 'evolutionist thinking' (survival of the fittest) and illustrates the extreme danger of placing those in power with no moral absolutes.
Any judicial system can only operate under Judeo /christian principles as we see with the problems encountered when those who propose sharia law and humanists try to administer 'Justice'.

11 June 2014 10:08  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

Two herrings are talking to each other. One says "I have heard about this thing called " ocean". Do you have any idea what it is?

Christianity is like the ocean the English swim in

11 June 2014 10:27  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Len @ 10.08

Well said !

11 June 2014 10:29  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

At least this thirteen-year-old disabled girl has a functioning conscience which is more than the Lord High Executioner could be accused of possessing.
Leaving to one side his own wishes and feelings, the preponderance of all the evidence is clear that it would be in his best interests and those of the yet unborn, that his career should be summarily aborted without right of appeal.

11 June 2014 10:34  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

I can't write much just now - I'm going to have to go away and calm down.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Does anyone know if there's a link to the legal case summary, with ratio & obiter?

11 June 2014 10:42  
Blogger William Lewis said...

It seems to be a short step from Pro-choice to no choice for either mother or child.

11 June 2014 10:54  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Like Rasher Bacon, I don't think I can manage much that's coherent at present. God help us all. Thank you, YG, for bringing this to public attention.

11 June 2014 11:01  
Blogger gentlemind said...

I read about this story on LifeSiteNews earlier today. Thank you so much, Cranmer, for writing about it.

The horror of abortion gives birth to death in myriad ways. If murder is not wrong, forced murder cannot be wrong. This poor young woman's case is a manifestation of the logic of Abortion, rather than a deviation from it.

The logic of Abortion dictates that its supporters support forced abortion.

11 June 2014 11:08  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Margaret Sanger would be proud. This is basically an act of court-ordered eugenics. As in "The mentally feeble shouldn't be allowed to breed." I would not be surprised if the court took the next step and ordered the girl sterilized.

However much the court may protest that it acted in the child's best interest, in fact the court was acting to cull the weak from the herd so to speak. That's why adoption wasn't an option. The child couldn't be allowed to live lest the gene pool be further denigrated.

Of course we have now established that "My body, my choice" has judicial limits. One can now imagine the day when the court will order a famous lawyer impregnated by a famous doctor that she must bring the pregnancy to term. For what limits judicial reach? And children of a certain kind will soon become a precious commodity in the child-free zone that is the West.

Eugenics cuts both ways, you know.

carl

11 June 2014 12:00  
Blogger Martin said...

The judge is clearly a wicked evil man & has now added murder to his crimes. That such should sit in judgement is an affront to justice & any civilised nation.

11 June 2014 12:09  
Blogger Martin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 June 2014 12:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

We should also admit that religious belief should not offer blanket protection from the law. The problem is not that the law restricts the ability to act on religious conscience. It must and should do so. Are you going to allow certain religions to inflict clitoridectomies on girls? The problem is rather the basis of law by which we decide how to restrict actions based on religious conscience. Specifically, the problem is that the secular basis for law is whatever bit if boiled beef the secularist ate last night.

You never know what indigestion my produce.

carl

11 June 2014 12:12  
Blogger RetiredPaul said...

With situations like these, we have to remember that we are not the final arbiters on the eternal consequences of such actions.
But we can see guidance from Matthew 18:6-7, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:1-3a.
All of these say essentially the same thing:"It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied round their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."

11 June 2014 12:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Gosh.

11 June 2014 13:19  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl is right. Perhaps good may come of this "My body, my right" has been quashed in law.

11 June 2014 13:19  
Blogger Shadrach said...

If Munby had been around when Mary was pregnant, Jesus may never have been born!

11 June 2014 13:45  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

We have crossed a significant line when a judge can decide that Person B should die because of Person A's incapacity - and justify it as being Person B's best interest.

carl

11 June 2014 13:48  
Blogger Owl said...

Ah, we now have been informed that the successor of "common law" is "secular law".

By what right does this person assume he can make this change?

Another disaster.

Btw. excellent comments Carl.

11 June 2014 14:53  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

‘Lawyers should be men of religion: and speaking generally that has always been the case in this country. It is the reason why the common law of England is so great. The law has been moulded for centuries by Judges who have been brought up in the Christian faith. The precepts of religion, consciously or unconsciously, have been their guide in the administration of justice.’—Lord Denning

‘The laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form’.—Sir James Munby

How much ground Christianity has lost, and in so little time. All part of the plan, doubtless. Part two of ‘A Passion for Justice’ is here.

11 June 2014 15:29  
Blogger IanCad said...

A soul snuffed out by a "self-regarding, pompous, publicity-seeking pillock"

Thank you YG

May I add? An utter bastard, a loathsome wretch---

All has been said.

Ernst got it in one. But, Oh! Man! that last sentence is depressing.

Are we all dying off?

No! There will always be a remnant.

We are promised that.

11 June 2014 15:49  
Blogger David Hussell said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 June 2014 16:26  
Blogger Gladiatrix said...

Dear Archbishop

If you feel that strongly would you not be better occupied taking up this matter with the Judicial Conduct Office, rather than writing a blogpost which Munby LJ is highly unlikely to see let alone take notice of?

11 June 2014 17:36  
Blogger Brian West said...

Gladiatrix 17:36. But Cranmer is a blogger; that's what he does.

11 June 2014 17:50  
Blogger John Malcolmson said...

As HG implies, the Utilitarians - those who think that the moral worth of an act should be judged solely by its outcome - have taken over. Why have we moved so far away from the Kantian idea - that nothing can be said to be good unless it derives from a good will?

11 June 2014 18:32  
Blogger John Malcolmson said...

Carl Jacobs 12:12

Excellent comment. Getting to the nub of the matter as you usually do.

11 June 2014 18:37  
Blogger Shadrach said...

Brian West @ 17;50
His grace is so much more than a Blogger. Wait and see.

11 June 2014 19:56  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Average IQ = 100
Less than 100 Tendency to be disfigured by tattoo / body metal / obesity. Shops at Primark
Less than 90 Enthusiastic football supporter
Low IQ – Degrees of retardation
Less than 85 Unable to master other than simple skills / Professional football player
70-80 Deficient in some areas / Likes TV quiz shows & soaps / Votes for the Greens / Born again Christian
50-69 Moron
20-49 Imbecile
Less than 20 Idiot

There is a case for sterilisation of females who appear somewhere in the above chart. Where the line should be drawn is debatable . To protect them from their inadequate selves. Would it be a sin to do this ? Is it a sin to give a man a quadruple bypass when he needs it, or would the ethical approach be to tell him. “Sorry old man, God’s will that you suffer this. Yes, we could do something for you, but church types have decreed it wrong to intervene. You see, we don’t know if the Almighty would approve and we’re taking no chances over upsetting Him. Apparently, our human form is as sacred as God Himself, or some such, not altogether sure why, but it does seem rather daft that that which will eventually rot to dust is assigned this consideration.” “I say, you’ve been very quiet and understanding about all this. Oh bugger ! You’ve only gone and died on me, haven’t you ?”

11 June 2014 20:21  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

You ask 'what if this girl had been RC.' If she had been, it is highly unlikely she would have got herself into this situation in the first place.

You ask whether one's IQ determines one's right to be pregnant. Who does have a right to be pregnant? Recently, an elderly gentleman asked me whether my brood were all planned or whether they were 'accidents'. "Neither," I replied,"they are all gifts."
"Oh!" he said. " I hadn't thought of it like that!"

11 June 2014 22:00  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack says that this shocking and truly evil development rather puts Tuam into context.

What will they think of our 'enlightened' age in years to come?

11 June 2014 22:04  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...



This is effectively "Action T4"

I bet we will see a lot more of this as it makes perfect sense to atheists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/714411/T4-Program

The Lutheran Church did not speak out against it then either.

Phil

11 June 2014 22:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

rather puts Tuam into context.

Why, yes, it does. The solution is obvious. In order to avoid secular judges ordering 13 year-old girls to get abortions, we should have the RCC set up a system of Mother & Baby Homes where young girls could be effectively imprisoned for two years and the child silently adopted out. And of course the girls would have incentive to go there because the alternative would be getting thrown onto the street.

The context is so clear to me now.

carl

11 June 2014 22:55  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

After an afternoon in a fairly agitated state of mind, I got this from Bible Gateway hitting the wrong app with a fat finger...

He says, “Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth.”

Far above all Munbys. I'll ask the God who humbled Nebuchadnezzar to look on this situation in this particular nation.

11 June 2014 22:59  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I've got to ask, is it not kinder to stop future generations suffering the same or worse genetic fate as this girl?

11 June 2014 23:03  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl, 1920's Ireland versus 2014 England and Wales. We'll let history judge the latter whilst we attempt to review objectively the facts and not the hype of Tuam.

11 June 2014 23:17  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Marie1797

I don't know. I'm glad you asked it as a question - the problem here is that the Judge pretends to know.

If genetic fate is our shrunken universe, then like Munby we scuttle round our lives like 2-dimensional Flatlanders, unable to perceive anything beyond matter. Eternity becomes a heresy.

The breathtaking foolishness is that he removes the sanctity of life by removing sanctity. There have been mentally handicapped people who have understood more than him - some I've known.

I think that's why some powers in the Bible are characterised as bestial - in their exclusion of God and elevation of themselves, they lose their own humanity and descend to the level of animals.

11 June 2014 23:17  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Marie 1797, that's the whole point - it is evil to play God.

Same goes for you Inspector.

11 June 2014 23:26  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack notices the absence of any secular, atheist, liberal defence of this outrage.

12 June 2014 00:33  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I realise that he's playing God and that the judge has taken away the sanctity of life, and that is wrong but on the other hand how do we prevent the propagation of abnormal genes weakening future humans beings? Do we want a nation full of mentally handicapped? The future for human beings is to be able to populate another planet and for that improved mental and physical strength is needed as we build space stations to be able to reach another earth type planet over more than one generation. Is it not better to be cruel to be kind? If this girl were an animal, she would have died naturally as the runt of a litter does. It is only through man's interference that she has been able to survive.

12 June 2014 00:52  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Marie 1797, surely, as people of God, we should abide by His eternal laws and trust to the future to Him?

Happy Jack believes we should follow God's rules and trust Him. The sanctity of life, no matter how we 'judge' it, and the avoidance of unnatural interference in the procreation of new life are key principles that we abandon at our peril.

12 June 2014 02:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

1920's Ireland versus 2014 England and Wales

You can be slippery at times. First you say that the one sets the context for the other and then you deny that they are in fact related because ..."1920's Ireland versus 2014 England and Wales."

One or the other please.

carl

12 June 2014 05:29  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Marie has a point. I wouldn't want my handicapped epileptic and autisic daughter to have a child. Thankfully she is chaste.

In cases where handicapped girls and women are at real risk of pregnancy (given our sexually immoral society) I would support sterilisation or long acting injectable as a lesser evil.

But never abortion. Our Lord entered the human race as a foetus and both Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 1:5 make the humanity of the unborn clear.

12 June 2014 06:09  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

PS Marie @ 00.52

I assure you that the difficulties of moving humankind to another habitable planet (if there is one, which seems highly unlikely) are utterly insuperable.

Interstellar faster than light travel would be necessary to reach distant star systems- certainly there are no other inhabitable planets in this solar system.

CSLewis wrote a lot about space travel, speculating tentatively about unfallen races on other planets (they did not know Mars and Venus were uninhabitable in the 1940s when his sci fi trilogy was written).

Lewis was glad that it was technically impossible ( and it is) that sinful, imperial Man could spread his poison beyond our home planet.

Do read Out of the Silent Planet and Voyage to Venus if you haven't yet had the pleasure. Kind regards.

12 June 2014 06:22  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Marie.

I think what you say is another example of how our view of human destiny shapes our actions in the present. The Christian outlook is not one of ever-increasing genetic 'purity' and strength, but triumph in weakness and humility. It's not mustering the strength to start again and reach another planet, but to await Christ from heaven who himself predicted that things would get worse before he returned, and a new heavens and new earth were made by God: 'behold I make all things new'. And that's after judgement. As with the man let down through the roof in Matthew, it's not about perfect physical bodies now, but forgiveness of sins as priority. Sin being a basis for law, and Munby's job. His mate Dawkins would have him unemployed in a jiffy.

While a certain amount of wisdom is needed, as Rambling Steve suggests, we're not breeding übermensch - we can't, as all are dead in trespasses and sins.

Phil Roberts is right about T4. Surely there's a law governing Godwin's law - that as people become more and more evil, comparisons to Nazi ideology become more and more appropriate?

12 June 2014 06:33  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Marie

one problem with moving off our planet

all our offspring would be girls

phil

12 June 2014 06:38  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

one problem with moving off our planet all our offspring would be girls

From your own offerings here it looks to me like you've defeated your own premise.

12 June 2014 07:34  
Blogger Father David said...

Judge Dread looks the image of a Churwarden I had several years ago, I wonder if they are related?

12 June 2014 08:23  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Rambling Steve Appleseed

“April 17, 2014: Using NASA's Kepler Space Telescope, astronomers have discovered the first Earth-size planet orbiting in the "habitable zone" of another star. The planet, named "Kepler-186f" orbits an M dwarf, or red dwarf, a class of stars that makes up 70 percent of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy. The discovery of Kepler-186f confirms that planets the size of Earth exist in the habitable zone of stars other than our sun.

The "habitable zone" is defined as the range of distances from a star where liquid water might pool on the surface of an orbiting planet. While planets have previously been found in the habitable zone, the previous finds are all at least 40 percent larger in size than Earth and understanding their makeup is challenging. Kepler-186f is more reminiscent of Earth. “

From
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/17apr_firstearth/

There is bound to be another Earth type planet and maybe it already has life on it? The universe is so vast. The question is does God want us to find it and go there? If so, it shall happen, but meanwhile man must keep on seeking and trying. Who'd have thought we would ever fly faster than the speed of sound, but we did, who'd have thought we would get a man into space but we did, and then a man on the moon, but we did. And we are about to have space travel for the masses. Life does not stand still.
NASA's had it's wings clipped as the Yanks rather spend their money stirring up trouble in oil producing countries and on pointless wars with those who are never going to get out of the 7th century, and that's a shame.

Rasher Bacon

NO, it's not about genetic 'purity' but more about damage limitation and protecting human abilities in a survival of the fittest kind of way.

I agree that Christianity is triumph in adversity, making the best out of a bad situation, a necessary lesson in humility and yes Jesus will come back to give us more guidance in the future.

12 June 2014 15:01  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl,
"You can be slippery at times."

Happy Jack? Never! Unclear and still working things out, granted.

"First you say that the one sets the context for the other and then you deny that they are in fact related ..."

You think too much like an engineer and a soldier. Human situations are not mechanistically straightforward and tend to be more complex than black and white.

Jack was suggesting the two responses and what they are based upon be compared and contrasted.

One did what it could and believed right to protect the lives and futures of unmarried mothers and the physical and spiritual welfare of illegitimate children. The other removes the problem by denying the mother any rights at all and killing the child.

Jack suspects many people will support Munby, such is the depths to which our society has sunk. Even some Christians here are suggesting mentally disabled people should be prevented from pregnancy. Not by protecting them from sex, for which they presumably cannot give informed consent, so essentially are raped. No, but by stopping the pregnancy. The next logical step is abortion because its an exceptional situation that should not have happened and the disabled woman doesn't know her own mind. You yourself have identified where all this is heading and that a line has been crossed.

You have a 'Hollywood' image of the Church in Ireland in the 1920's, devoid of an understanding of the realities of the time, and created by the likes of the Washington Post. Btw, this is not a defence or justification, merely a statement of the reality there.

12 June 2014 15:05  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Marie1797 said:

"how do we prevent the propagation of abnormal genes weakening future humans beings?"

Eugenics is a bit like Communism. On paper, at least to simple-minded and blinkered individuals with no sense of foresight whatsoever, it seems like a great idea, but everywhere it's been attempted, and the places go way beyond Nazi Germany, it's turned out to be a total and unmitigated ethical disaster with no discernible effect on the numbers of people with various disabilities. This is because eugenics is based on an overly-simplistic and ultimately false understanding of Darwinian evolution. Sadly, this offensive and dangerous bullshit about breeding out so-called defectives has endured longer than the rabid racism it originally went alongside.

"Do we want a nation full of mentally handicapped?"

Another offensive and ridiculous straw-man argument. The proportion of the population affected by hereditary disability is tiny. Plus, for someone who believes that eugenics will help us build better interstellar spaceships to talk about the mental deficiency of others really does seem a bit rich.

"Is it not better to be cruel to be kind? If this girl were an animal, she would have died naturally as the runt of a litter does. It is only through man's interference that she has been able to survive."

It us only through man's interference that anyone who has ever had life-saving surgery has survived. Why don't we wait until someone you love needs medical intervention, Marie, and then we'll see how keen you are on letting nature take it's course...? It's a lot easier to spout crap about cruel to be kind when it's just someone you dismiss as a useless eater, or life unworthy of life, isn't it? I trust you'll bear in mind the need to avoid human interference and let nature take it's course if you get appendicitis of your child gets meningitis.

12 June 2014 16:24  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Darter Noster

I said IF left to nature and she were an animal she would have died.

I never dismiss anyone as a useless eater or life unworthy of life. They are here and one has to deal with and make the best out of the situation and love them. Christianity helps us do this.
Medical intervention to stop more mentally handicapped people being created or the gene mutating over generations into another disability for someone to suffer. Of course you'll never erase disabilities altogether and what about the people who in life become disabled in some way they all need looking after too. I'm pointing out why add to the problems when we can stop spreading it around.



12 June 2014 17:32  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Don't worry guys - it's not the end.

It may, however, be the beginning of the end.

12 June 2014 18:07  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Marie1797 points to another claim by scientists to have found an earth-like planet.

I was talking about science in an alpha course a few years ago and used a report on BBC news which headlined that scientists had found an esrth like planet as a major breakthrough. The only problem was that towards the end of the article it reported that the same scientists said that the night time temperature was -170 degC. At this point you realise there is no air because you have icebergs of oxygen floating in a sea of nitrogen and there would be no prospect of liquid water.

My son said thay what made the planet "earth-like" was that it was round.

I agree that the Judges decision is eugenics.
The unborn child hadn't committed any crime.

12 June 2014 19:54  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 June 2014 20:54  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 June 2014 20:54  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Jack. “it is evil to play God…Same goes for you Inspector.” .Your opinion on this man’s suggestion to sterilise the moron girl before she starts pumping out any more off-spring…

If you were the grateful recipient of interventionist life extending surgery that defies God’s apparent plan in as much as he attempted to pull the plug on you, one does not think the surgeon ‘playing God’ would cause anything like a moral dilemma for you. But then, your defiance of the limited lifespan God originally had in mind for you is exactly that – defiance of our Creator, a grave sin then.

Fall in with the rest of mankind doing a deal with God out there, and let’s have no more hypocrisy.

12 June 2014 20:54  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector, so good you said it three times - coincidentally, the same number of times Peter denied Christ.

Hold whatever views you want but do stop playing to the gallery and presenting yourself as the Roman Catholic 'everyman'.

If you trouble to read the post by Darter Noster you'll see he answered all your *points*. Frankly, Jack couldn't be bothered as we've been here before.

12 June 2014 21:07  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Jack. You can stick your eighteenth century version of Roman Catholicism. We’ve come a long way since the barber-surgeon.



12 June 2014 21:24  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Darter’s “run and hide, the eugenics man is about” does not impress....

12 June 2014 21:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector
" ... eighteenth century version of Roman Catholicism?

Please explain.

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”
(G.K. Chesterton)

12 June 2014 22:33  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

And enforced sterilisation or contraception is not accepted in the 21 century by the Catholic Church. Same since the time of Christ, as it goes.

Happy Jack thinks the advance in medical science is wonderful. Its the uses to which this is put that matters. Knowledge increases; the moral code remains the same. The Church is there to navigate the right path through the changes.

"Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today: and the same for ever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines."

We wouldn't want you to become a one man band believing you can make it up as you go along to suit your particular blind spots.

12 June 2014 23:34  
Blogger Len said...

'Jack slippery' ?

Is a snake slippery?.

'it is evil to play God.'

(another classic line) try telling that to the Pope (he really thinks he is you know!)

13 June 2014 08:34  
Blogger Martin said...

FWIW, Eugenics is based on an entirely reasonable reading of Evolution but Evolution is simply a fiction anyway. It's like trying to maintain a car on the basis of the beliefs of the local witchdoctor. Hence eugenics shares in the evil nature of Evolution.

Martin

13 June 2014 16:04  
Blogger SometimesWise said...

Last Sunday at Pentecost at our church, our priest baptized a profoundly mentally-handicapped woman. She has the mental age of perhaps a 2- or 3-year-old. When he talked to her about baptism, he asked her to tell him about Jesus. She clasped her hands in the sign-language sign for "friend", and smiled. That was enough - and there wasn't a dry eye in the house when she was brought into our parish family. Marie, we don't choose God - He chooses us - even the most simple souls.

13 June 2014 16:28  
Blogger Jumbo Driver said...

I pray that this Judge will discover, sooner rather than later, that there are dire consequences when you set your face against God. I am praying that, by whatever means, he is removed from his post.

13 June 2014 16:40  
Blogger Donalbain said...

http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2014/06/12/high-courts-role-in-13-year-olds-abortion/


Ooops! Looks like someone jumped on a half baked piece of piss poor journalism.

14 June 2014 08:26  
Blogger Donalbain said...

Firstly, the court did NOT order her to have an abortion. Indeed, it has no legal ability to do so.

From the actual ruling:

there is no question in this case, or indeed in any case, of a court, by order, requiring any doctor to perform an abortion or termination. An abortion will only happen in this case if, as s1 of the Abortion Act 1967 requires, two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. Further, it will only happen if a doctor or doctors, in the exercise of their own professional judgment, voluntarily decide to perform the abortion”.

Secondly, it seems that in fact, the child while wanting to keep the child at one point in the proceedings, changed her mind. Again, from the ruling itself:

“[submissions] had been prepared on the basis that X was opposed to a termination. By the beginning of the hearing it appeared that X was wavering and by the end of the hearing the position was that X had been consistently expressing a wish to have a termination for the previous two days. Much of the excellent submissions from counsel . . . . had therefore been overtaken by events

14 June 2014 08:37  
Blogger Luther said...

"Leaving to one side her own wishes and feelings"?

Christians, beware - they do this to defenceless children first, adults will be next.

14 June 2014 14:55  
Blogger Luther said...

Oh, and, donalbain - if you were cooped up for several days without access to friends and family you would swear black is white and white is black to make them leave you alone.

14 June 2014 14:57  
Blogger emale said...

""Qui in utero, est pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur:"

http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/stevens3.htm

16 June 2014 18:25  
Blogger Len said...

Some people should never be put in positions of power and to have any sort of control over others.
Lord Justice Munby makes my point perfectly..

22 June 2014 09:10  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older