Fri 31st Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 31st Oct 2014 at 14:03pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Comment & Blogs

Soon, the racist anti-Semite Marie Stopes will be on our stamps. Already, eponymous abortionists are menacing pro-life prayer. A mad world, or what?

The wealthy Marie Stopes International is legally threatening the use of rosaries in baby pink and blue

By on Monday, 6 August 2012

Marie Stopes is still held up as a 'Great Briton' in Lefty circles (Photo: PA)

Marie Stopes is still held up as a 'Great Briton' in Lefty circles (Photo: PA)

The Good Counsel Network, which is dedicated to providing advice and support for women contemplating abortion, or who are suffering psychological trauma following an abortion, has been threatened with legal action by Marie Stopes International (MSI).

MSI, of course, is an immensely rich organisation because of the massive number of abortions it carries out, and it can afford very expensive lawyers. Through them, MSI has accused the Good Counsel Network of “intimidating” women going into their abortion facility in London. What particularly annoys them is their daily prayer vigil outside the Marie Stopes abortion facility in Whitfield Street, London. Good Counsel Network says that these “abortuary vigils” give volunteers the opportunity to talk to women who are in crisis pregnancies, but insist that they would not attempt directly to prevent any woman from entering the MSI premises. Among MSI’s complaints is that during their prayer vigils the GCN display rosary beads in “baby pink and blue”: a really under the belt tactic, that. Reminding women contemplating abortion of the existence of babies? Surely not.

Neil Addison, barrister director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, is representing GCN. In his response to a letter from MSI, he says Marie Stopes International is itself indulging in a campaign of intimidation by using its vastly superior financial resources to deploy the law to rid itself of a group that is becoming increasingly embarrassing to the abortion giant. “Let us be blunt,” Addison wrote to MSI’s legal representatives. “Marie Stopes International makes a great deal of money by persuading women to kill their unborn babies and makes no money if women decide to keep their babies.” They are “by no stretch of the imagination a neutral and impartial voice” and have a “substantial financial interest in trying to silence” opposition.

What is interesting is the prominence this organisation still gives to its trademark heroine, Marie Stopes, as though flaunting this woman’s name were in some way a sign that what they do is honourable and of good repute. Marie Stopes is undoubtedly still a heroine of the bien pensant left: so much so that the Royal Mail will, in October, be launching a postage stamp bearing her image. Go to the Guardian website, here, and you will read, under the headline “Marie Stopes is one of the Great Britons”, how last year the BBC announced its viewers’ “Greatest Britons” (evidence, perhaps, of the PR skills employed to get her into that list). Marie Stopes International, we are told, “derives its name from a remarkable lady who made it into the top 100”.

“Women,” asks this Guardian website piece, “can you imagine your body being the property of your husband?” [if not, I am tempted to interject, try reading that huge women’s bestseller Fifty Shades of Grey]. “Being permanently pregnant through ignorance? Then thank Dr Marie Stopes. The lifestyle and personal fulfilment enjoyed by British women today owes more than many realise to this remarkable character…

“She founded Britain’s first family planning centre in 1921, published numerous articles and spoke extensively on the subject throughout the rest of her life. Determined, single-minded, relishing challenge and controversy, with staggering self-confidence and an outrageous talent for publicity, Marie Stopes succeeded in improving the quality of life for countless women, couples and families. She was and is truly a Great Briton.”

Really? A “Great Briton”? Well, not quite: on the contrary, this was a truly repulsive human being. For a start, let me tell you, if you didn’t know already, about that family planning centre she opened in 1921. Later the same year she founded the “Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress”, as a support organisation for the clinic. That name is, of course, a dead give-away. The clinic’s purpose was to prevent the birth of so many of the racially inferior working class, of those she described as “the inferior, the depraved, and the feeble-minded”. That’s why her clinics were founded in poor areas. Her slogan was: “Joyful and Deliberate Motherhood, A Safe Light in our Racial Darkness.” She believed, as she wrote in her book Radiant Motherhood (1920), that “the sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [should be] made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” She contributed a chapter to The Control of Parenthood (1920), which was a sort of manifesto for her circle of eugenicists, arguing for a “utopia” to be achieved through “racial purification”.

Her ideas on racial purity included a rabid anti-Semitism. She admired Hitler and sent him, with a gushing letter, a copy of a slim volume of love poems she had written; in 1935 she attended the Nazi-sponsored International Congress for Population Science in Berlin. Her anti-Semitism was noted disapprovingly by other pioneers of the birth control movement such as Havelock Ellis. She was also anti-Catholic and anti-Russian; the following poetic gem was produced in 1942:

Catholics, Prussians,
The Jews and the Russians,
All are a curse,
Or something worse…

At least, by 1942, she realised that for an Englishwoman publicly to continue to admire German militarism wasn’t very clever; but her anti-Semitism and her racism were unmodified.

Back to the organisation which so proudly bears her name: the most admirably expressed comment about both of them that I have seen in the papers (well, online, actually) was, as so often and on so many subjects, by the estimable Peter Hitchens, who under the headline “Abortion and its repellent heroine”, wrote that “Marie Stopes International (which receives about £25 million a year from the NHS, much of it for killing unborn babies under contract) should be allowed to advertise its repellent services on TV. But on one condition. That each advertisement is followed by both of these: film of an actual abortion of a 24-week-old baby, and a brief documentary reminding viewers that Marie Stopes sent love poems to Adolf Hitler in August 1939, advocated compulsory sterilisation for the ‘unfit’, and cut her own son out of her will because he married a girl who wore glasses.”

“What sort of organisation,” he concludes, “would name itself after such a monstrous woman?” The unspoken answer — the multi-million-pound group Marie Stopes International — is at present seeking to protect its income by legally threatening an organisation which makes no profits at all, which depends on donations to survive (readers, please note), and whose only aim is to defend the unborn lives of those currently being slaughtered in such vast numbers by such organisations as MSI, an image of whose flagship heroine will shortly be gracing our postage stamps. Truly, it’s a mad, mad world.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

     “Unborn children are members of the human family.”

    And so have the same rights as all other members of the human family.

    That does not include the right to make use of a woman’s body against her will: that is a “right” claimed by prolifers, which violates the UDHR, as described.

    Abortion is a human right.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

     “. We just want to protect human life.”

    Nonsense. If you did, you would campaign to prevent abortions by birth control and comprehensive sex education and resources for single mothers and children: you would campaign for girls and women to have access to safe legal abortion.

    As you only campaign to make abortion dangerous and expensive by making it illegal, it follows you have no concern for human life or human rights.

    I argue from facts. Prolifers have nothing but straw men and lies.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

     It must be very sad to live in a world where you have to regard the prochoice majority, who believe in kindness, respect for human life, health, wellbeing, and human rights, as “weird political extremists”.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

     So you do believe that the government and the courts should control a woman’s body, and they, not she, should get to decide when and if she’ll have a baby.

    A woman has a basic human right to terminate a pregnancy when she wants. Otherwise, she’s being used against her will. People who argue that the government and the courts should be allowed to try to force a girl or a woman to give birth against her will, are arguing just like the Nazis did, in that respect at least.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

     Historical fact.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

    Check the Jewish Virtual Library on Pius XII and the Holocaust.

  • nytor

    There is clearly NO such right enshrined in international law or indeed in European law or all countries would be expected (which God forbid!) to adhere to it. Even in your own terms, the terms of secular “rights” which the Church does not per se approve, there is no right which you can cite. You can interpret as you will, but it is not an interpretation shared by those who interpret international law.

    As I said above, I don’t believe that the separate human life within the woman is a part of the woman’s body, so yes, the state should have the right to protect it, as they do the lives of the post born and as they do for the unborn in Ireland.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

     *grin* Fair enough. You exercise your free speech rights in demanding a different stamp, I will exercise mine in grumbling about the holdup.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

    Interesting to find that prolifers regard a woman who worked for human rights, health, wellbeing, and sexual happiness in marriage, was “truly evil” – but an anti-Semitic Pope is an “exemplar Christian”. Some scale of values, eh?

    Note that I support your right not to buy the stamp, just exercising mine to think your values are skewed.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    I once made the mistake of reading his blog, and he associates old Southern slave-owners with pro-life people because both are against abortions in slave women!

    Can you believe it? Guilt by association.

    By that logic, people who wear a mustache are the pinnacle of evil, because both Hitler and Stalin did it too.

    The logical fallacies abused by pro-abortion people are scary.

  • nytor

    You found an unbiased source, I see. Try reading some proper scholarship on the subject.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

     The commonest cause of death worldwide for teenage girls is pregnancy. Lives that could be saved if the evil of prolife were overcome and all women everywhere had access to birth control and safe legal abortion on demand.

    Fifty thousand women a year die because prolifers have succeeded in making abortion illegal and dangerous. Every death an unnecessary one, if only every country in the world was prochoice.

    Those are the monsters in today’s world, those comparable to Rose West or Myra Hindley: those who know that their “principles” are killing women and children, and continue to promote them.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    >” There is no article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
    gives any member of the human family the right to use any other member
    of the human family against their will.”

    It is implied by the right to life.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

     > “And so have the same rights as all other members of the human family.”

    Including the right to life.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    By the way, I have re-read the articles 1-5 and none of them are remotely supportive of abortion.

    It seems that you are enganing in quote-bombing, rhetoric atrittion warfare.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    >”Nonsense. If you did, you would campaign to prevent abortions by birth control”

    Oh please. Many of the places with more contraception use also hold records on abortion. One example is New York City. There, children have condoms coming out of their noses. And 40% of pregnancies end on intentional abortion.

    > “Prolifers have nothing but straw men and lies.”

    Show one case in which I have did that.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    > “Interesting to find that prolifers regard a woman who worked for human rights, health, wellbeing”

    She did not do that. She worked for eugenics, racism, anti-semitism, anti-Catholicism.

    >
    “but an anti-Semitic Pope is an “exemplar Christian””

    There is no way to deny that Marie Stopes was racist; the situation with Venerable Pius XII is completely different. He has been labeled “anti-semitic” for “not helping the Jews enough”, without concern for the situation of the times.

    Anti-Catholics forget that Pius XII was completely surrounded by Mussoline and that countless millions of Catholics lived in Nazi lands.
    He had to carefully analyze which course of action would lead to the fewer deaths. He saved thousands of Jews, as much as he could.

    Presenting the situation as “Pius XII hated Jews” is utterly dishonest.

  • awkwardcustomer

    Dawkins is already on the ‘slippery slope’. I watched the entire clip and here’s what he said:

    ‘….suppose you take the argument in favour of abortion up until the baby was 1 year old, say, or 2 years old … and so if a baby was 1 year old and turned out to have some horrible, incurable disease, one that meant he was going to die in agony in later life, what about infanticide? Morally I … strictly morally, I can see no objection to that at all. I would be in favour of infanticide. But I think I would worry about … uhm … but I think I would at least give consideration to the person who says where does it end.’

    Abortion up until a baby is 1 or 2 years old!  In favour of infanticide but prepared to consider where this might end! That’s big of him. Fr Lucie-Smith’s article ‘The Tragedy at the Heart of New Atheism’ (Catholic Herald blogs) quotes Dawkins as insisting that there is no meaning in the universe, only ‘blind, pitiless indifference’.

    Perhaps there is only ‘blind, pitiless indifference’ in Richard Dawkins, which he is projecting onto the universe while using the theory of Evolution to justify himself.

  • Julia

    Will you look at more than a 48 second clip in which Richard Dawkins is cut off in mid sentence?

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    I explicitly said I watched the entire clip. It is more than 3 minutes long, and gives enough context.

    I repeat myself: he explicitly and literally accepts the murder of disabled babies, on strictly moral grounds.

    See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HjA_7OUog

  • Julia

    I did reply to you, but my comment has been evaporated (not just removed as with a “Guest”: “Comment removed”, but totally vaporised/obliterated without any trace).

    My reply was not rude, and did not contain any nasty words. But I had hoped that its penetrating intelligence (blush), always hated by censors, might have done you some good. 

  • Julia

    Woodie really should apologise for calling you an “idiot”.
    (Comment removed)
    He’s very fond of asking for apologies from other people for himself.

  • Peter

    Unborn babies are killed and dissected for research and the harvesting of spare parts.

    It’s a win-win-win situation.

    Money for killing unborn babies.

    Money for laboratory dissection and research.

    Money for selling off the spare parts.

    Killing babies is a very lucrative business, a global business with intense vested interests.

    Partial birth abortion is the most lucrative because it kills babies in the latest stage of pregnancy when they are fully formed and therefore their organs can be more profitably harvested.

    The baby is decapitated within the womb for legal reasons because to remove it from the womb, where it would still survive, and decapitate it would be murder.

    Big abortion organisations, and related research establishments and pharmaceutical groups, are lobbying energetically for the provision of as much pro partial-abortion legislation as possible to facilitate this bestial practice around the world, in order to maximise their profits.

    Far from achieving the kingdom of heaven on earth, what we have created is the reign of hell.

    .

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

     “There is clearly NO such right enshrined in international law or indeed
    in European law or all countries would be expected (which God forbid!)
    to adhere to it.”

    All countries ARE expected to adhere to it. Ireland is simply refusing to follow the ECHR ruling.

    ” so yes, the state should have the right to protect it,”

    So, as I said – you believe the state ought to own and control the women’s body in order to try to force her to give birth against her will. No straw man.

    Irish women who need abortions must travel to the UK and depend on the kindness of strangers. It’s not a very successful arrangement, and it certainly doesn’t prevent abortions in Ireland: only ensures that women who need abortions must either travel or – if it’s early enough – buy abortifacient drugs and have an abortion illegally at home.
    http://thesherlocksoundbite.com/?p=200

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

     I see you yourself are anti-Semitic enough not to regard the Jewish Virtual Library as “Proper scholarship”.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

     So in your view, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights allows a court to order you to provide a kidney to a compatible renal patient who will die without yours – without any consent on your part?

    Interesting.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

    Your confusion about this evidently stems from your presumption that women are not entitled to the rights in the articles cited.

    It’s a presumption prolifers usually make.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

    Show one case in which I have did that.

    Well, let’s see. You claim that in New York City “40% of pregnancies end on intentional abortion”.

    This is a lie, though I’m willing to believe it’s not your lie. CDC data says that for every 1,000 live births in New York City there are 676 abortions. For every 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44 in New York City, there are 44 abortions annually. So the claim that “40% of pregnancies end on intentional abortion” is obviously a lie, since anyone to whom the facts about abortion in NYC mattered would check the CDC report.

    Which in turn, since you either didn’t bother to check the CDC report or did check it but opted to repeat the lie, suggests that you have no solid information about contraceptive availability and regular use in New York City, either.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

     But, setting aside your parochial focus on the US, the countries around the world with the lowest abortion rates are invariably also those with excellent social provision for mothers and children (not the US), broad availability and uptake of contraception (not the US), and easy legal access to abortion on demand any time in the first trimester (not the US).

    Everyone’s known for decades how to prevent abortion. It’s just prolifers obstructing it, because they’d rather punish women than prevent abortions.

  • http://twitter.com/EyeEdinburgh EdinburghEye

    . He has been labeled “anti-semitic” for “not helping the Jews enough”, without concern for the situation of the times.

    Indeed. How could one ever expect the Pope, at a time of extreme moral urgency, to make a stand on moral principles regardless of its risks to himself?

    But no. As the Jewish Virtual Library notes, Pius XII is recorded to have made anti-Semitic remarks and to have cooperated closely with the Nazis in Germany and in France.

    Anti-Catholics forget that Pius XII was completely surrounded by
    Mussoline and that countless millions of Catholics lived in Nazi lands.

    Absolutely. No one could possibly expect Pius XII to take a noble public stand on principle. No one could possibly expect the Pope to exhort Catholics to take a moral stand. We do not expect moral leadership from the Pope. /EndSarcasm.

    Isn’t that just what we are supposed to expect from the Pope? Is it really “anti-Catholic” to expect that the leader of a world religion won’t show that his first concern is to preserve his power and his safety, second to assure his religious followers they needn’t take a moral stance if it’s risky, and only a long way third to worry about the morality of killing and abusing Jews?

    I would also note that, sarcasm apart, I appreciate that it’s easy to call on others to show moral courage in the face of danger when sitting at home safely yourself. Pius XII showed no moral courage or leadership, but that’s a matter between himself and his conscience – and, now he’s dead, a matter for the conscience of Catholics about thieir Church whitewashing him for sainthood.

    But the idea that someone is an “exemplar Christian” because he set the example of refusing to speak out against evil, refusing to risk his life to help the suffering, well… odd set of moral values.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

     Oh please. That is different from pregnancy on a number of ways.

    Pregnancy is safer than losing a kidney.
    Pregnancy, in 99% of the cases, is caused by voluntary actions of the woman, who knew full well where babies come from.

    In Brazil, abortion is always a crime, but the penalty is null in cases of rape or danger to the mother’s life.

    That is very different from your bizarre example.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    Will you stop engaging in cheap, baseless straw men? You can’t be serious.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    > “This is a lie, though I’m willing to believe it’s not your lie. CDC data says that for every 1,000 live births in New York City there are 676 abortions.”

    676 * 1000 / (1000 + 676)=40

    I don’t think that abortion tourism would significantly change that.

    Also, this source

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6015a1.htm

    says that the abortion rate in NYC is actually HIGHER than 40%

    So you do not seem to have a logical bases for your Ad hominem attacks on pro-lifers.

    What do I expect from a guy that says “Southern slave-owners used to prohibit their female slaves from aborting, therefore they were pro-life, therefore pro-life has roots in slavery!” ? If you can seriously believe that guilt-by-association is a valid logical argument, then you should go back to  second grade ASAP.

    And make sure to remove your mustache because both Stalin and Hitler wore mustaches. Therefore, people with mustaches are Nazi and Communist at the same time!

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    Oh please. WILL YOU STOP YOUR STRAW-MEN?

    HE SAID *YOU* ARE AN EXTREMIST, NOT ALL PRO-CHOICERS!

    Jesus. You are either mentally retarded, or a troll.

    I try to be polite, but patience has limits.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    @twitter-353022633:disqus

    > “This is a lie, though I’m willing to believe it’s not your lie. CDC data says that for every 1,000 live births in New York City there are 676 abortions.”

    Uh, 676 * 1000 / (1000 + 676)=40

    I don’t think that abortion tourism would significantly change that.

    Even if 30% (a very “generous” assumption) of the 676 abortions were from women outside NYC, the NYC abortion rate would still be 32%

    Also, this source
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6015a1.htm

    says that the abortion rate in NYC is actually HIGHER than 40%

    So you do not seem to have a logical bases for your Ad hominem attacks on pro-lifers.

    What should I expect from a guy that says “Southern slave-owners used to prohibit their female slaves from aborting, therefore they were pro-life, therefore pro-life has roots in slavery!” ? If you can seriously believe that guilt-by-association is a valid logical argument, then you should go back to  second grade ASAP.

    And make sure you don’t have a mustache because both Stalin and Hitler wore mustaches. Therefore, by your logic, people with mustaches are Nazi and Communist at the same time!

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    I bet that these “low abortion rates” that you claim, don’t include early pre-implantation abortions.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    @twitter-353022633:disqus
    > “Indeed. How could one ever expect the Pope, at a time of extreme moral urgency, to make a stand on moral principles regardless of its risks to himself?”

    STOP YOUR STRAW-MEN. I was not about the Pope’s safety. I mentioned the millions of Catholics whose lives were at risk, depending on the Pope.He did condemn Nazism. But if he had gone berserk and said “every Catholic has a duty to subvert the Nazi regime under penalty of excommunication” then the result would be Catholics joining the Jews at the gas chambers.Endangering one’s life is one thing; ENDANGERING THE LIVES OF MILLIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE IS SOMETHING ELSE.

    Got it?

    >”As the Jewish Virtual Library notes, Pius XII is recorded to have made anti-Semitic remarks”

    Provide examples, with context and citation.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    MODERATORS: please ban @twitter-353022633:disqus

    He does nothing but hurl Ad hominem attacks and outrageous logical fallacies against prolifers.

    He only wastes our time and impoverishes the debate.

    Examples:

    1. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/08/06/soon-the-racist-anti-semite-marie-stopes-will-be-on-our-stamps-already-eponymous-abortionists-are-menacing-pro-life-prayer-a-mad-world-or-what/#comment-612967338

    Here he falsely, gratuitously claims that pro-lifers think women are not entitled to human rights.

    2. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/08/06/soon-the-racist-anti-semite-marie-stopes-will-be-on-our-stamps-already-eponymous-abortionists-are-menacing-pro-life-prayer-a-mad-world-or-what/#comment-612640196

    Here he falsely claim that pro-lifers deny women the right to decide the spacing of their children.

    3. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/08/06/soon-the-racist-anti-semite-marie-stopes-will-be-on-our-stamps-already-eponymous-abortionists-are-menacing-pro-life-prayer-a-mad-world-or-what/#comment-612743474

    Here he falsely claims that JabbaPapa accused all pro-choicers of being political extremists.

    4. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/08/06/soon-the-racist-anti-semite-marie-stopes-will-be-on-our-stamps-already-eponymous-abortionists-are-menacing-pro-life-prayer-a-mad-world-or-what/#comment-612742626
    Here he falsely claims that pro-lifers have nothing but straw-men and lies.

    5. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/08/06/soon-the-racist-anti-semite-marie-stopes-will-be-on-our-stamps-already-eponymous-abortionists-are-menacing-pro-life-prayer-a-mad-world-or-what/#comment-612997847

    Here he falsely insinuates that I said Pius XII was focused on protecting his own life during his diplomatic action during WWII.

    6. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/08/06/soon-the-racist-anti-semite-marie-stopes-will-be-on-our-stamps-already-eponymous-abortionists-are-menacing-pro-life-prayer-a-mad-world-or-what/#comment-612984302

    Here he falsely claims that pro-lifers lie about the New York abortion rate.

    Those 6 comments are, of course, a small selection. Nearly all of his comments are like this.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    Richard Dawkins supports infanticide. Share this with your friends.

    This is relevant to the many Dawkins cultists that come to this forum to offend us.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HjA_7OUog

    Here is a transcript of the relevant part:

    Richard Dawkins: Another example might be SUPPOSE YOU TAKE THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ABORTION UP UNTIL THE BABY WAS ONE YEAR OLD, SAY, TWO YEARS OLD, AND SO IF A BABY WAS ONE YEAR OLD AND TURNED OUT TO HAVE SOME HORRIBLE INCURABLE DISEASE THAT MEANT IT WAS GOING TO DIE IN AGONY IN LATER LIFE. WHAT ABOUT INFANTICIDE? MORALLY, I, STRICTLY MORALLY I CAN’T SEE NO OBJECTION TO THAT AT ALL, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF INFANTICIDE. But I think I would worry about, I think I would wish to at least to give consideration to the person who says “well, where does it end?”.

    Peter Singer: Yes, I can see that there is a problem with, say small children and partly because we’re bonded to them very closely in a way that we’re not really bonded, to the same extent anyway, to the fetus, or perhaps even to the newborn infant. But I think when people make slippery slope arguments in this area, you have to appreciate that it does go the other way. Precisely because we draw this boundary between us and animals, we turn a blind eye to all of that animal suffering, as you are more or less acknowledging I think. And that of course has disastrous consequences for animals.

    Richard Dawkins: AGREED.

  • JabbaPapa

    Will you stop engaging in cheap, baseless straw men?

    Based on past performance, he won’t.

  • teigitur

    That this awful woman is going to be on our stamps just shows the lack of moral compass, and not only in matters sexual , but also financial. Yes Dr Oddie the world is mad, and getting madder.

  • teigitur

    Well at least you ave a sense of humour. Though perhaps a little work could be done on some other senses.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    The world is getting madder, but the Church is becoming purer by the day.

    The crazy 70s are over. Blessed John Paul the Great started the process of rallying the youth to orthodoxy, and appointing sane bishops. These days, I would say that >90% of bishops are orthodox.

    And the LCWR is being reformed, and the freaking SSPX is coming back to the Church. At this rate, by 2020 the Church will be in a wonderful state. A “spirit of Vatican II” hippie that woke from a coma in 2020 would be absolutely shocked.

    Thank God!

  • teigitur

    Yes he was so anti-Semitic the Jewish Mayor of Rome converted to Catholicism after the war. You really are a hoot, Free entertainment.

  • clare

     Are you sure Marie Stopes is going to be on stamps this year? She was a few years ago, and that Guardian article is not dated as far as I can see., but it refers to Sunday 20th Oct, whereas this year, 20th Oct is a Saturday. Google Marie Stopes stamps, and apart from the above article, every other story is from 2008.

  • awkwardcustomer

    You talk as if pregnancy had no cause, as if it was caught like a disease.  Of course women, and men, should take control of their bodies.  If women, and men, aren’t prepared to become parents then the solution is easy.  Don’t have sex. 

    The sex industry and those promoting freedom without responsibility relentlessly promote sex as a pleasure without consequences, as if this were a human right.  And so the unborm continue to be murdered in the womb. Since when was murder a human right?

     

  • awkwardcustomer

    And another thing.  I’m always suspicious of men who bang on about ‘a woman’s right to choose’.  Surely what they really mean is THEIR right to choose, their right to have sex without responsibility, their right to have sex and then expect the woman to abort the child that results.  Sadly, women have fallen for this. 

  • Bob Hayes

    For Marie Stopes women having or not having children was not a matter of personal choice: ‘healthy stock’ had a duty to breed for race and nation, while the ‘degenerate’ were to be prevented from breeding.

    If MSI operated on Stopes’ principles it would be urging women in areas of high unemployment to undergo sterilisation. Any women in a profession who sought an abortion would be sent packing and told to have the baby and do her duty for the ‘race’.

    Do read ‘Radiant Motherhood’.

  • Nicolas Bellord

    If “the commonest cause of death worldwide for teenage girls is pregnancy” could it not be because of inadequate maternal health care?  Is it not significant that Ireland and Malta where abortion is illegal have the lowest rates of maternal deaths in Europe?   Did not the level of maternal deaths actually go up soon after the Abortion Act came into force because of botched but “legal” abortions?

  • Bob Hayes

    Are you a constitutional lawyer, or is the above your lay opinion of what the UN Declaration means?