Oct 25

Commons votes for Abortion

10 comments

Skip to comment form

    • BigMarktheGeezer
    • Mark J on 25 October 2018 at 18:32

    smh. How low can we go?

    • Child-of-God
    • A. K on 25 October 2018 at 21:50

    I’ve heard that things are going to go the other way in the US under Trump (who is a Christian). If that happens, we can only hope that it spreads over here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G79pvNinxs

    • gadz
    • gadz on 25 October 2018 at 22:22

    There is something cold and heartless in the eyes of these women pictured as pro-abortion. I find it very creepy. Would they have survived if they had been conveived in our day? There is no guarantee that they would have with the abortion figure now reaching 9 million since the 1967 act.

    • Rox
    • Rox on 26 October 2018 at 00:14

    There is something increasingly silly about this. If it is such an important principal to Ulstermen that they should not be treated as in any way different from the rest of the United Kingdom, for example when it comes to customs arrangements with the European Union, the same principal should surely make them desperate to have laws like abortion in line with the rest of the UK too,

    In fact, it’s difficult to see why they should want a separate parliament of their own, and they don’t much seem to want it, as it hasn’t sat for almost two years ! So let Union be Union. Or otherwise let them be part of Ireland and part of the EU, which would save the rest of us an ENORMOUS amount of trouble, not to mention the rest of the EU (who must have given up trying to understand them). Unfortunatley, though, just as we are no longer as bowler-hatted as they are, they have fallen behind the republican fashions too, and would find that abortion is no longer condemned in the formally rigidly Christian republic over the crazy border which isn’t really there. Their position is increasingly untenable.

    • llooeegee
    • Luigi J on 26 October 2018 at 08:35

    0ur Government,and many more, have become a gaggle of Devil worshipers. Secular in the extreme.

      • Rox
      • Rox on 26 October 2018 at 14:33

      You can’t call Devil worshippers “secular” ipso facto, any more than you can call Allah worshippers “secular” , ipso facto.

      In everyday usage, secular people don’t worship any god, but more accurately they might do. The essential thing is that secular people don’t allow religion to get in the way of law-making and the regulation of Society. Luigi seems to be implying that Theresa May (a vicar’s daughter) and her cabinet are departing from policies he would wish them to pursue because they worship the devil. This would make the government diabolocratic, not secular.

      Most people would require some hint of evidence before they gave Luigi’s theory of devil-worshipping governments a second thought, I’m afraid.

        • Stephen
        • Stephen on 26 October 2018 at 16:31
          Author

        I see what you are saying, but Secularism is a religion. Or a pseudo-religion. It exalts man and his reason as the ultimate authority. That makes it pagan, as in worshipping an aspect of creation rather than the Creator. And that makes it satanic.
        Yes, Mrs May makes much of being a vicar’s daughter. You remind of the Lord’s conversation with some of the Jews of his day, claiming to be Abraham’s children. They received a very uncompromising repost:
        John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. …
        John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.

          • Rox
          • Rox on 27 October 2018 at 13:00

          I’m afraid Stephen is confusing humanism and secularism. You really only need to look at the relevant definitions in Chambers Dictionary and think carefully to appreciate the difference.

          Humanism. “Any system that puts human interests and the human mind paramount, rejecting the supernatural, belief in a god etc.”
          Secularism. “The belief that the state, morals, education etc should be independent of religion”.

          So secularism is not a religion. It can be convenient to class humanism as a “pseudo-religion”, however, for example on school timetables alongside alternatives like Sikhism and Zoroastrianism. Secularism, on the other hand, refers merely to the practice of being equally open or closed to the dictates of any particular religion (or pseudo-religion). The classical example of a secular state is France, but there have always been lots of Roman Catholics in France, together with Protestants and now Muslims as well.

          I could discuss this further if required.

  1. This is the most appalling piece of legislation yet, and it demonstrates the signs that we are catapulting towards a society and civilisation that would even make Sodom and Gomorrah blush with embarrassment. I know that it has yet to be passed, but the mere fact that it is even being considered demonstrates beyond all doubt what kind of civilisation we have become. As Christians we have to stand out AGAINST this evil murdering set of politicians and filthy garbage that represent us (heaven help us if we get that rat bag Corbyn), but also recognize that we are in an environment that has damnably ungodly, something which the main stream established church does virtually nothing to confront. As Christians we are way too passive and inactive, and I appreciate the organizations like Christian Voice and others in partially filling this gap. What a bad bad day this is indeed for us as nation.
    Mike Lampard

      • Rox
      • Rox on 27 October 2018 at 13:27

      I can think of worse legislation, for example the Witchcraft Act of 1735 , which was last used in 1944 and finally repealed in 1951 — in Great Britain itself. It remains in force in more religious territories like Northern Ireland and Israel (inherited there from the British Mandate).

      Far worse, though, was the Witchcraft Act of 1604, which at the instigation of King James I, did not suffer a witch to live (see Exodus 22:18, King James Bible).

      So the 1735 Act turns out to be a very liberal move in fact ! Passed by parliamentarians who no longer really believed that evil “witches” existed in the traditional sense, it was much more aimed at the fraudulent use of “magic” to gain advantages over superstitious people, and it reduced the penalty from death to 1 year’s imprisonment. Still a little draconian, though, when you think of what modern advertisers can get away with.

Comments have been disabled.