I agree with most of this. You do not mention the case of babies with serious mental abnormalities though. Their abortion should be allowed at any point - it is no life for them or their parents, and imposes great costs on the whole of society.
No doubt about when you become human. You become an entire complete human organism at the moment of conception. First, you are entire; no longer a part of another organism, an egg or a sperm cell of your parent, you are now an entire, distinct organism of your own. Next, you are biologically complete, as complete as you'll ever be. You'll gain and lose bits and pieces along the way. But starting out with just a few is simply human. You'll probably end up with only a few in the end, anyway. Of course, there's still a long way to go, but you've got a comprehensive map of the road ahead and are completely ready for your stage of the journey, which is as ready as any of ever are.
Very emotive and very sad. The fact that this has become a political issue (check out the party division of the vote) sadly demonstrates the depths that this fragile government will stoop to to protect their minority votes. They truly would sell their own souls.
«Very emotive and very sad. The fact that this has become a political issue (check out the party division of the vote)»
It is indeed an issue that is highly relevant to politics and in particular electoral politics but not in the way apparent in that division (both New Labour and Conservatives are right-wing parties):
* The primary and overriding mission of a right-wing party is to protect the interests of property and business owners and the "culture" and "identity" aspect is far less important (it was more important before the industrial age but not since a long time).
* However property and business owners are a small electoral block so in order to fulfill their mission right-wing parties must also make electoral appeals to other interests which are compatible with or at least are against those of property and business owners.
* One larger voter block is women and many women vote more on their identity as women than on material interests (in large part because they seem to think that they are highly related) and their interests as such mainly oppose those of men who are not business and property owners; in particular most "women rights" issues do not cost much if anything in terms of higher taxes or higher wages (same as for gay rights, trans rights, minority rights, etc.).
* In general right-wing parties ("whig" ones more than "tory" ones) therefore will seek to gain the votes of women by pandering to them and then using their votes to get into government and do policies for the benefit of business and property owners; the pandering will constantly escalate to ever more extreme and narrower issues to keep proving to many women that hey are on their side.
In the current case this policy costs close to nothing as to higher taxes or wages and therefore is entirely compatible with right-wing politics (especially of a "whig" type) as for many property and business owners supporting the right to do a few more infanticides does not affect them and is worth it if it keeps in power parties friendly to business and property owners.
So many of your fellow MP’s have demonstrated not just on this issue, but also on assisted suicide that they are basically part of a cult that worships death.
«on this issue, but also on assisted suicide that they are basically part of a cult that worships death.»
I reckon that it is a big misunderstanding because the commonly given rationale for many if not most "woke" policies including abortion (contracted mutilation), self-abortion (self-mutilation), assisted suicide (contracted death), gay marriage (contracted relationship), gender transitioning (surgical and chemical mutilation), etc. is "my body is my property".
The traditionalist view was that there are institutions like marriage that are determined by society (or by the deity) and therefore market freedoms and rights do not apply to them but the contemporary view is that "my body is my property" involves cherished right-wing principles like "freedom of contract" and "property rights".
The ultimate goal seems to be to reintroduce a fundamental historical conservative freedom that christianity slowly and eventually abolished not so long ago (19th century): the full freedom to use your own property including your own body in market transactions including as collateral for loans (and relatedly the abolition of personal bankruptcy). That is the long-term "big prize" for those interests "sponsoring" woke policies.
«I wonder who the people are, mainly, who abort unborn babies on account of their sex?»
The answer is always only one: women who regard those babies as less profitable pension assets than the alternatives, whether it is contraception or abortion, whether the alternative is babies of the other sex or financial accounts; the issue is that bearing and raising children is risky and expensive and women therefore seek to maximize the risk and cost adjusted returns of their investments.
I agree with a lot of what you say here, but it's pretty inconsistent to acknowledge that it is controversial when a foetus becomes a person and then also try and pull on heartstrings with the "300,000 people a year will never get to experience life"
This is absolutely shameful. What have we voted into the house of commons, and shouldn't the house of lords (which includes church ministers) be holding them to account? What is the king doing in all of this? Will you be publishing a list of the members who voted for this?
The King is only allowed to warn or advise the PM. He is constitutionally forbidden to do anything else. I don't think that the present PM is about to pay much attention to what the King says.
The rationales given are that as long as it is inside you and connected to your body (e.g. umbilical) it is an organ of your body and then it is simply your property of which you can do whatever you want. So it is claimed that it is legalised self-mutilation, like pulling a tooth or waxing body hair. The underlying question is whether a the unborn are merely contained in the mother or are part of the mother. A more common case of (temporarily) conjoined "twins".
«Cui bono?»
Some financial interests: it is about restoring the freedom to contract to use the body you own as collateral when borrowing.
Thank you. the unborn child has the potential to feel emotion and be aware until about 41/2 to 5 months of gestation then it actually is aware and does feel emotion so it is actually a separate being from conception onwards. Any abortion whatsoever is therefore the murder of a viable being separate from the mother. There are circumstances where it is a case of choosing between the death of the mother or the death of the unborn infant: the decision about which of them should live depends on the circumstances: usually the mother would tale precedence.
To fine a veteran 9000 pounds for being in a "safe place" near an abortion clinic, silently praying is iniquitous. He was standing up for what is right and true. Meanwhile heaps of Muslims illegally block free passage through a public space, (Trafalgar Square), "praying", and nothing at all is done to punish them.
I agree with most of this. You do not mention the case of babies with serious mental abnormalities though. Their abortion should be allowed at any point - it is no life for them or their parents, and imposes great costs on the whole of society.
"When do you become a person? "
No doubt about when you become human. You become an entire complete human organism at the moment of conception. First, you are entire; no longer a part of another organism, an egg or a sperm cell of your parent, you are now an entire, distinct organism of your own. Next, you are biologically complete, as complete as you'll ever be. You'll gain and lose bits and pieces along the way. But starting out with just a few is simply human. You'll probably end up with only a few in the end, anyway. Of course, there's still a long way to go, but you've got a comprehensive map of the road ahead and are completely ready for your stage of the journey, which is as ready as any of ever are.
Very emotive and very sad. The fact that this has become a political issue (check out the party division of the vote) sadly demonstrates the depths that this fragile government will stoop to to protect their minority votes. They truly would sell their own souls.
«Very emotive and very sad. The fact that this has become a political issue (check out the party division of the vote)»
It is indeed an issue that is highly relevant to politics and in particular electoral politics but not in the way apparent in that division (both New Labour and Conservatives are right-wing parties):
* The primary and overriding mission of a right-wing party is to protect the interests of property and business owners and the "culture" and "identity" aspect is far less important (it was more important before the industrial age but not since a long time).
* However property and business owners are a small electoral block so in order to fulfill their mission right-wing parties must also make electoral appeals to other interests which are compatible with or at least are against those of property and business owners.
* One larger voter block is women and many women vote more on their identity as women than on material interests (in large part because they seem to think that they are highly related) and their interests as such mainly oppose those of men who are not business and property owners; in particular most "women rights" issues do not cost much if anything in terms of higher taxes or higher wages (same as for gay rights, trans rights, minority rights, etc.).
* In general right-wing parties ("whig" ones more than "tory" ones) therefore will seek to gain the votes of women by pandering to them and then using their votes to get into government and do policies for the benefit of business and property owners; the pandering will constantly escalate to ever more extreme and narrower issues to keep proving to many women that hey are on their side.
In the current case this policy costs close to nothing as to higher taxes or wages and therefore is entirely compatible with right-wing politics (especially of a "whig" type) as for many property and business owners supporting the right to do a few more infanticides does not affect them and is worth it if it keeps in power parties friendly to business and property owners.
So many of your fellow MP’s have demonstrated not just on this issue, but also on assisted suicide that they are basically part of a cult that worships death.
«on this issue, but also on assisted suicide that they are basically part of a cult that worships death.»
I reckon that it is a big misunderstanding because the commonly given rationale for many if not most "woke" policies including abortion (contracted mutilation), self-abortion (self-mutilation), assisted suicide (contracted death), gay marriage (contracted relationship), gender transitioning (surgical and chemical mutilation), etc. is "my body is my property".
The traditionalist view was that there are institutions like marriage that are determined by society (or by the deity) and therefore market freedoms and rights do not apply to them but the contemporary view is that "my body is my property" involves cherished right-wing principles like "freedom of contract" and "property rights".
The ultimate goal seems to be to reintroduce a fundamental historical conservative freedom that christianity slowly and eventually abolished not so long ago (19th century): the full freedom to use your own property including your own body in market transactions including as collateral for loans (and relatedly the abolition of personal bankruptcy). That is the long-term "big prize" for those interests "sponsoring" woke policies.
The cult that worships death and says so openly is Islam. I wonder who the people are, mainly, who abort unborn babies on account of their sex?
«I wonder who the people are, mainly, who abort unborn babies on account of their sex?»
The answer is always only one: women who regard those babies as less profitable pension assets than the alternatives, whether it is contraception or abortion, whether the alternative is babies of the other sex or financial accounts; the issue is that bearing and raising children is risky and expensive and women therefore seek to maximize the risk and cost adjusted returns of their investments.
I agree with a lot of what you say here, but it's pretty inconsistent to acknowledge that it is controversial when a foetus becomes a person and then also try and pull on heartstrings with the "300,000 people a year will never get to experience life"
«it's pretty inconsistent to acknowledge that it is controversial when a foetus becomes a person and then also try and pull on heartstrings»
Precisely because “it is controversial when a foetus becomes a person” the best attitude is to err on the safe side (for the baby).
This is absolutely shameful. What have we voted into the house of commons, and shouldn't the house of lords (which includes church ministers) be holding them to account? What is the king doing in all of this? Will you be publishing a list of the members who voted for this?
The King is only allowed to warn or advise the PM. He is constitutionally forbidden to do anything else. I don't think that the present PM is about to pay much attention to what the King says.
If you scroll down the transcript and click on the divisions it says who voted which way: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2026-03-18/debates/C9F70B7A-3723-4DEB-869B-F641A8E86A1B/CrimeAndPolicingBill
Thanks for highlighting this subject. Most stuff I read, I'm fairly familiar with. But I'd no idea this change had been agreed. Scandalous.
Monstrous decision what have we become as a nation 😢
This is obviously legalised murder. Cui bono?
«This is obviously legalised murder.»
The rationales given are that as long as it is inside you and connected to your body (e.g. umbilical) it is an organ of your body and then it is simply your property of which you can do whatever you want. So it is claimed that it is legalised self-mutilation, like pulling a tooth or waxing body hair. The underlying question is whether a the unborn are merely contained in the mother or are part of the mother. A more common case of (temporarily) conjoined "twins".
«Cui bono?»
Some financial interests: it is about restoring the freedom to contract to use the body you own as collateral when borrowing.
Thank you. the unborn child has the potential to feel emotion and be aware until about 41/2 to 5 months of gestation then it actually is aware and does feel emotion so it is actually a separate being from conception onwards. Any abortion whatsoever is therefore the murder of a viable being separate from the mother. There are circumstances where it is a case of choosing between the death of the mother or the death of the unborn infant: the decision about which of them should live depends on the circumstances: usually the mother would tale precedence.
To fine a veteran 9000 pounds for being in a "safe place" near an abortion clinic, silently praying is iniquitous. He was standing up for what is right and true. Meanwhile heaps of Muslims illegally block free passage through a public space, (Trafalgar Square), "praying", and nothing at all is done to punish them.