Only the heathen, we feel, could have such a callous disregard for human life as to throw a baby out just because it is a girl - and throw it out
for the pi dogs or vultures after it has been born!
Sadly, many, many acts of slaughter have been carried out by Christians
- often against other Christians.
In the case of European colonisation, advanced (for the era) military technology was ruthlessly used against weaker folk.
The British fought wars to allow their traders to import opium into
China, including modern steel battleships 'heroically' battling Chinese junks.
Is there any evidence of Parliament adopting the amendment to the
current abortion laws?
Yet that is precisely what the abortion lobby want to introduce into Britain. Some MP has attempted to smuggle such a provision into law by creating an ammendment to the Crime and Policing Bill (and ammendments
do not get a full debate) which would allow abortion at any time (even
up to birth, which effectively means after birth) and for any reason (including sex selection).
Fortunately the Lords seem to be deciding against it, but doubtless the > Labour majority in the Commons will try to ram it through against the
Lords. There are those who wish to abolish one of the houses of
parliament: I strongly suspect that we would be better governed if it
was the Commons which was abolished and with it the political peers.
On 17/10/2025 09:48, GB wrote:
Sadly, many, many acts of slaughter have been carried out by
Christians - often against other Christians.
Yes, though at least in theory, women and children are spared. The
present bill is directly aimed at children.
In the case of European colonisation, advanced (for the era) military
technology was ruthlessly used against weaker folk.
The word "Gaza" springs irresistably to mind.
The British fought wars to allow their traders to import opium into
China, including modern steel battleships 'heroically' battling
Chinese junks.
Beware of going too far in portraying the Chinese as helpless innocents.
I agree that the opium wars were a disgrace, but there was much, much
more involved, primarily Chinese refusal to allow *any* trade except
under highly controlled and restrictive conditions where corruption flourished.
The junks to which you refer were large and equipped with canon. I
agree, no match for modern steel battleships, but that's what happens
when you insist on living in the past and refuse to learn from the "barbarians".
Is there any evidence of Parliament adopting the amendment to the
current abortion laws?
Apart from the fact that it is actually in the proposed bill and is
being debated, you mean?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 17/10/2025 04:02, Kendall K. Down wrote:
Yet that is precisely what the abortion lobby want to introduce into
Britain. Some MP has attempted to smuggle such a provision into law by
creating an ammendment to the Crime and Policing Bill (and ammendments
do not get a full debate) which would allow abortion at any time (even
up to birth, which effectively means after birth) and for any reason
(including sex selection).
Warning to other readers, one must always check Ken's "facts" because he
has misrepresented what the amendment proposes
Fortunately the Lords seem to be deciding against it, but doubtless
the > Labour majority in the Commons will try to ram it through
against the
Lords. There are those who wish to abolish one of the houses of
parliament: I strongly suspect that we would be better governed if it
was the Commons which was abolished and with it the political peers.
"It quite simply provides that women in England and Wales who act in relation to their own pregnancies cannot be guilty of any abortion-
related offences. It is a measure designed specifically to deal with
cases like Carla FosterrCOs. It leaves the offences in place so that other people can be guilty of them rCo for example, a doctor who fails to comply with the terms of the 1967 Act when performing abortion, or a man who covertly gives his partner abortion drugs to procure an abortion without
her consent; or someone who violently attacks their pregnant partner or ex-partner, causing her to lose a viable pregnancy. The existing
offences exist to deal with all of these things, and in fact they have
been used far more often to prosecute men who cause the loss of wanted pregnancies than to prosecute women who self-induce abortion.
AntoniazzirCOs amendment would allow the law to continue dealing with
these crimes as it currently does. It would also have no impact on the conscience clause that allows professionals with a conscientious
objection to opt out of direct involvement in abortion, and that professionals throughout the UKL rely on every day.
NC1 is a rCycleanrCO amendment in the sense that it is straightforward to understand, and it would not lead to any legal confusion. Nevertheless,
it would take the law much further than many people are comfortable
with, by essentially legalising self-induced abortion at any point up
until birth, something that is medically unsafe and which the majority
of the public does not support. Most people support the legality of late abortion only when performed by doctors in extreme circumstances"
https://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/lawschool/blog/ theabortiondecriminalisationamendmentsatwestminsterbadlawinthemaking/
The word "Gaza" springs irresistably to mind.
Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Syria ...
The trouble was that we wanted tea and the other wonderful goods the
Chinese had, but they didn't need any of our manufactured goods, so the Chinese wanted to be paid in silver. Unfortunately, the quantity of
silver needed was more than the entire world supply.
So, this wheeze of creating a demand for something we could produce,
namely opium, was dreamt up. At one point 10% of the Chinese population became addicted. As you say, entirely disgraceful.
Of course, the Chinese should have allowed themselves to be paid in
modern battleships...
Live in the past, and you get taken advantage of by the Christians, you mean? You do appear to be victim-blaming there.
I can't see it being passed, though?
Warning to other readers, one must always check Ken's "facts" because he
has misrepresented what the amendment proposes
"It quite simply provides that women in England and Wales who act in relation to their own pregnancies cannot be guilty of any abortion-
related offences.
NC1 is a rCycleanrCO amendment in the sense that it is straightforward to understand, and it would not lead to any legal confusion. Nevertheless,
it would take the law much further than many people are comfortable
with, by essentially legalising self-induced abortion at any point up
until birth, something that is medically unsafe and which the majority
of the public does not support. Most people support the legality of late abortion only when performed by doctors in extreme circumstances"
I'm not sure that a full term abortion is an abortion, anyway? It's
called 'giving birth'.
On 19/10/2025 14:36, GB wrote:
The word "Gaza" springs irresistably to mind.
Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Syria ...
Of course, but your post directly targetted Christians. I merely wished
to point out that Christians are not the only ones capable of acting unjustly.
The trouble was that we wanted tea and the other wonderful goods the
Chinese had, but they didn't need any of our manufactured goods, so
the Chinese wanted to be paid in silver. Unfortunately, the quantity
of silver needed was more than the entire world supply.
Didn't need or didn't want?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but the link with silver I have not come
across before.
On 19/10/2025 14:40, GB wrote:
I'm not sure that a full term abortion is an abortion, anyway? It's
called 'giving birth'.
And killing a live baby is called "infanticide".
There was an American girl currently in prison because she gave birth in secret and killed the baby because it would interfere with her social
life and her aspirations to be a cheer leader. Under this bill she would have been exempt from prosecution.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I was responding to you saying:
"Only the heathen, we feel, could have such a callous disregard for
human life".
The only way to disprove that is by showing that Christians, too, show a callous disregard for human life, I'm afraid.
The same parents in East London have now, for the third time(!),
abandoned a baby child. This time, in freezing temperatures, the baby
was abandoned in a park. Fortunately, she was found and has now been
taken into care.
There must be a better way of dealing with this issue, which has been
around a very long time.
On 20/10/2025 13:46, GB wrote:
I was responding to you saying:
"Only the heathen, we feel, could have such a callous disregard for
human life".
The only way to disprove that is by showing that Christians, too, show
a callous disregard for human life, I'm afraid.
Ah, but the "callous disregard" to which I was referring was the
deliberate killing of unborn or newly born babies. Events in wars,
however deplorable, do not come into the same category, I'm afraid.
Interesting about the silver.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 20/10/2025 13:56, GB wrote:
The same parents in East London have now, for the third time(!),
abandoned a baby child. This time, in freezing temperatures, the baby
was abandoned in a park. Fortunately, she was found and has now been
taken into care.
And you think that killing the baby is an acceptable alternative?
However in this case, where the woman is using abandonment as a form of birth control, a long spell in prison seems called for.
There must be a better way of dealing with this issue, which has been
around a very long time.
Some places have special hatches in fire stations or police stations.
You can open it from the outside, deposit unwanted baby in and scarper. Those inside open the inner door, retrieve baby and care for it.
Not saying I approve, but it is *a* solution.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I broke my toe whilst in India and went to the local GP in Bangalore.
There was a BIG sign on the wall saying they would not tell parents the
sex of their unborn child.
However, I'm in favour of birth control, and you have said much the same.
The normal birth control pill prevents the fertilised eggs from
embedding in the wall of the womb, which in principle is no different
from abortion.
But that raises the question of how many cells is it okay to abort? If
it's okay to abort a single cell foetus, why not 10 billion cells?
One consistent approach is only to approve of birth control that
prevents fertilisation?
Without knowing more, I don't think we can blame the mother, rather than
the father.
I used to work in the City of London, and I vaguely recall one of the buildings had a niche built into the side for this purpose.
Without knowing more, I don't think we can blame the mother, rather
than the father.
I didn't say who should be imprisoned, but if the father is to blame -
which may well be the case - the mother still deserves punishment for staying with him.
I can't see how sentencing them to 14 years will somehow make themMake it 24 and then there will be no danger of them becoming parents at all.
better parents?
I broke my toe whilst in India and went to the local GP in Bangalore.
There was a BIG sign on the wall saying they would not tell parents the
sex of their unborn child.
On 19/10/2025 14:40, GB wrote:
I'm not sure that a full term abortion is an abortion, anyway? It's
called 'giving birth'.
And killing a live baby is called "infanticide".
There was an American girl currently in prison because she gave birth in secret and killed the baby because it would interfere with her social
life and her aspirations to be a cheer leader. Under this bill she would have been exempt from prosecution.
On 19/10/2025 13:36, John wrote:
Warning to other readers, one must always check Ken's "facts" because
he has misrepresented what the amendment proposes
You then go on to give further detail, which merely confirms the truth
of my summary.
I am glad that majority opinion is against the provisions of this bill.
No doubt the BBC will now start a campaign with plays, sob stories in
the news, and all the rest of it, to manipulate public opinion in favour
of what the amendment advocates.Now you're just being silly.
Indeed, but in India there is a more sinister significance. Parents wantI broke my toe whilst in India and went to the local GP in Bangalore.
There was a BIG sign on the wall saying they would not tell parents
the sex of their unborn child.
My son is nearly 38 now, but neither of us wanted to know the gender
until birth.-a Despite the new fangled fad of gender reveals, I still wouldn't want to know beforehand.
How so? If the birth has already taken place, then it's no longer abortion.Because the new law - if passed - will allow abortion up to the moment
Except it doesn't.-a You gave a blanket statement that the amendment
would make abortion legal up to the date of birth, whearas the amendment only allows mothers to be exempt from prosecution if they abort their
own baby.-a Abortion after 24 weeks will still be illegal.
On 23/10/2025 20:09, John wrote:
Except it doesn't.-a You gave a blanket statement that the amendment
would make abortion legal up to the date of birth, whearas the
amendment only allows mothers to be exempt from prosecution if they
abort their own baby.-a Abortion after 24 weeks will still be illegal.
Unfortunately, abortion after 24 weeks will only be illegal if carried
out by a doctor. A mother at home will be exempt.
On 23/10/2025 19:58, John wrote:
How so? If the birth has already taken place, then it's no longerBecause the new law - if passed - will allow abortion up to the moment
abortion.
of birth. Exactly what does that mean? Up until the baby has crowned? Up until it has fully left the womb? Up until two minutes after birth.
These people are positively evil.
One of the reasons the amendment is proposed is due to the Carla Foster case, who induced her abortion between 34 and 36 weeks pregnancy.
Although I can see the reaoning behind the amendment I disagree with it,
but Carla obviously had her reasons for wanting to abort it, and
although 34-36 weeks is too late imo, no one is suggesting there will be women queing up carte blanc to abort their babies seconds before giving birth.
These people are positively evil.
It's one person actually, and whilst I disagree with her amendment I
would hardly call her evil. There is very little appetite for it to be included so methinks you're getting your knickers in a twist over nothing.
The abortion will still be illegal, all the amendment proposes is that
the person carrying the baby won't be prosecuted.
The longer a pregnancy goes on the more likely tremendous harm will beSo the ammendment is dangerous as well as evil. It will result in the
done if someone decides to terminate their own foetus without external
help. If external help is sought, eg a doctor, then the doctor can be prosecuted.
On 24/10/2025 11:43, John wrote:
So the ammendment is dangerous as well as evil. It will result in the
deaths of the women it is ostensibly trying to help. Really, all it is helping is the abortion industry, for whom this is the start of a
genuine slippery slope.
Out of interest, do you eat eggs?Yes. I agree it is a bit inconsistent, but if the egg is unfertilised
On 27/10/2025 00:02, John wrote:
Out of interest, do you eat eggs?Yes. I agree it is a bit inconsistent, but if the egg is unfertilised
you aren't killing anything.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 23:26:12 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (8,794K bytes) |
| Messages: | 186,852 |
| Posted today: | 1 |