Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion


9:05 am - September 1st 2011

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

In April this year we unearthed a presentation by Dr Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship, in which he argued it was important to chip away slowly at abortion rights, to reach the goal of a full ban on abortion.

“We have to realise we are in for a very long battle here,” he said.

This week Dorries admitted to receiving advice from Dr Saunders – and refused to reveal who was behind her ‘Right to Know’ campaign website.

This isn’t surprising. Dorries eventually admitted that the ’20 Reasons for 20 Weeks’ website she fronted during in 2008, was created by the fundamentalist group Christian Concern for our Nation.

Nadine Dorries herself claims she is pro-choice. But while many of her opponents dismiss the claim, it has been difficult to undermine it without real evidence.

But I’ve been passed on comments she made in an interview just a few years ago that seriously question the claim she is pro-choice.

In 2007 Nadine Dorries was interviewed by the Salvation Army magazine (hat-tip bloggerheads.com), focusing on this issue.

She said:

No Labour Government will ever restrict a woman’s right to an abortion. They have what is known as Emily’s List, an organisation which helps finance the campaigns of women parliamentary candidates. Only pro-choice women are eligible for funding. Even if a future vote to abolish abortion carried a party whip, the Emily’s List MPs would support a woman’s right to abortion.

On the pro-life side of the fence, the public takes little notice of those who want to abolish abortion. They are dismissed as extremists. If I were to argue that all abortions should be banned, the ethical discussions would go round in circles because one person’s opinion is as valid as another’s.

My view is that the only way forward is to argue for a reduction in the time limit.

This attitude exactly mirrors that of Dr Peter Saunders – who said in his presentation that calling for a complete ban on abortion was not on the cards anytime soon, and the right had to be undermined slowly.

Later on, Dorries goes on to say:

The public is not interested in banning abortion. Those who hold out for a complete ban have not changed the law – they have not saved a single life.

To me, saving some lives is better than saving no lives at all. I hope pro-lifers will come to share my view that some progress is better than no progress.

Religion
Dorries has also repeatedly claimed that her campaign is not motivated by religion – even while her main sources of advice seem to be hardline religious groups.

In the interview she reveals she was became a Christian through an Alpha Course.

And does it influence her work?

My faith tells me who I am. It tells me why I am here. It tells me who is with me while I am pursuing my goals. I sometimes think if I didn’t have my faith, who would I be? How would I live my life?

My faith constantly gives me my reference point. It keeps me grounded. I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. There is nothing I did that got me here; it is what God did. There is nothing amazing or special about me, I am just a conduit for God to use.

The other day Dorries said on her blog that the Guardian was “desperately trying to either paint me as, or link me to, some kind of religious fundamentalism” – it doesn’t need to… Dorries does it herself.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Feminism ,Health

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Mike Killingworth

How many other MPs consider that they are in the House “because God wants them to be”? Frank Field, I suppose. People got any other nominations…

Revealed, the real views of Sunny Hundal
“I think if a woman chooses to abort her baby a week before its born…..”
As I have previously pointed out there is no obvious scientific reason to stop there why not abort at 3 months? The issue of pain is a red herring animals feel pain and are more sentient than a new born.

Revealed The Views Of Marie Stopes
The Marie Stopes Web site carries the logo ‘Making Women Matter’ not “Making the Unborn Child Central” that is a value judgement and one that comes with dubious provenance of left wing contempt for individual life .
Marie Stopes herself was suspected of being anti Semitic and attended the Nazi sponsored International Congress for Population Science in Berlin as late as 1935. She was a full on Eugenicists, arguing for a “utopia” to be achieved through “racial purification” and sterilisation :She also bemoaned the abolition of child labour for the lower classes:
I quote

” who recklessly bring forth from an inferior stock individuals who are not self-supporting, the middle and superior artisan classes have, without perceiving it, come almost to take the position of that ancient slave population.”

The people of this country are way ahead of the baby boomer elite who are besotted with the wimmin`s movement as it existed in the 70s not to say virulent left wing anti clericalism. There is a partly understandable loathing of Christianity which has enshrined attitudes to women and science that are historic but let no-one doubt that the wish to exclude moral and ethical considerations from disposing of the unborn is motivated by irrational sentiment .Those who believe scientists are not the only ones with anything of value to contribute are not the religious crazed extremists here , it is the heirs to the progressive eugenicists who must justify their horrifying extremism

“I think if a woman chooses to abort her baby a week before its born…..”

So, again, Sunny shows he is pro-manipulated-choice. He tries all sorts of scare tactics to get people to vote against a very simple motion – to make abortion advice independent of financial gain.

You may (and do) dislike her other views, but they don’t matter. What should matter to you is that women are given the maximum opportunity to make the right choice on something as important as this. The maximum opportunity is to have advice given to them by people whose financial situation is not improved if the woman says yes.

I still don’t understand why you’re defending this system, other than your rather obvious anti-Christian bent.

Oh and Mike Killingworth (and Hundal). What’s wrong with someone being influenced in their actions by their faith. My suspicion is that you are both influenced by your faith in everything you do – lack of belief in a God – or at least the Christian God. What makes Dorries any different? At least she’s open about it, unlike you two.

Paul Newman re comment 2:

Perhaps if Sunny had children he wouldn’t be quite so ‘gun-ho’ about abortions a week before due date.

Empathy is not his forté.

5. Oliver McCarthy

This is ludicrous. Why are you trying to pretend that Nadine Dorries is anti-abortion? (Do you really hate unborn babies that much? Are you really that paranoiacally bloodthirsty?) Of course she isn’t anti-abortion. She wants more abortions, not fewer. She just wants them earlier (and, presumably, cheaper). The fact that she’s only just managed to hoodwink the great brains of the Sally Army and various small evangelical protestant groups that no one’s ever heard of ought to prove the point.

I have kids, I’ve lost a kid. A woman can have an abortion for whatever reason, it’s her right and her choice, but to avoid heartache to others involved and psychological damage to the woman in question after prolonged oxytocin overload, it’s not unreasonable to say: make your mind up and do it as early as possible.

Funny how all these Christians don’t give a damn about torture, war mongering, bankers’ bonuses, racism and swingeing cuts in public services, but are prepared to make the lives of ordinary people even more wretched than they need be by interfering in the most private of decisions.

8. Mike Killingworth

[3] James, I don’t have any difficulty with someone saying “my faith impels me to behave this way” so long as they are prepared to take the consequences of their actions. Catholic MPs have refused to serve as ministers in the Department of Health before now, and I respect them for that.

It’s when someone claims, in effect, that they have a privileged access to God that others don’t have that the trouble starts. And my own religious views can be found by five seconds’ Googling, but you clearly don’t have the courtesy to do so.

Of course, Dorries’ professed deep Christian morality didn’t stop her getting divorced and subsequently committing adultery with a married man, then smearing his wife in a national newspaper as an alcoholic.

@2 You keep bringing up sunny’s previous statement like it’s some knock-out blow, when in fact it merely highlights your own very low opinion of women. In a world were women can elect to abort right up till birth, how many do you think will do so one week prior?
Because I’m under the impression it’ll be none. Aside from ‘abort or both you and the baby will die’ medical situations.

The fact that God has a personal interest in Dorries shows he has very bad judgement.

I know it’s not done to question people’s sanity or use mental health epithets as it doesn’t make for a good debate, but really Nadine Dorries does push me to the limits of restraint.

Perhaps the best course is to do what Sunny does, let people judge her by what she’s said and written. I suspect most people outside the deep south of the United States will make a pretty straight forward assessment of Ms Dorries and reject it.

Conduit for God – yes, even God needs to have a s**t sometimes.

@11 – or a funny sense of humour.

@Paul Newman (2)

I’m going to go ahead and call Godwin’s law here; for the gratuitous reference to Naziism and Eugenics (as if the atrocious views of single person can discredit an entire philosophy). Don’t listen to any classical music, Wagner was a Nazi!

As for the exclusion of ethical and (more importantly) moral values from the legislative process, all I can say is GOOD! Moral arguments are by their very nature subjective (ethical arguments, less so). They shouldn’t be allowed to form the debate, and they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to form legislature. The current limits on abortion were formulated with the use of objective scientific and medical evidence (to determine the limits of life and viability). The pro-life lobby is neither interested or capable of presenting objective evidence in support of its rabid and hysterical views, and it wonders why in a functioning democracy it has made little traction?!

As to why we shouldn’t abort a fetus at >24 weeks. I would argue that since >24 weeks gestation is judged as medially viable, it would be just as easy (and perhaps even less traumatic) to induce labour and allow adoption. Though to be entirely honest I don’t share this view, or the sentimental view that neonates are people (The mirror test and other objective evidence suggests otherwise). To me, the medical integrity/rights of a grown woman supersede the perceived rights of an un-born and unwanted fetus.

And Paul, you’re caesar salad dressing is absolutely disgusting. ;-)

Hah. Gotta love the desperation of Dorries fans. You’re gonna LOSE suckers. The amendments are dead and your heroine’s agenda exposed (Frank Field was always an arse anyway).

Get these religious nutters out of our Parliament! She needs to go to the loony bin.

18. Roger Mexico

Despite Dorries protestations that it’s all a plot by spawn of the devil Evan Harris, and Number 10 is right behind her, according to the BBCthey’re right behind her with a knife.

However, though it’s great fun, blissful even, sticking the boot into the appalling Dorries, there are greater worries about the Health Bill than her unpleasant amendments. The structural changes that 38 Degrees have highlighted may mean the disintegration of the NHS into a collection of publicly funded but unaccountable units. This is the real battle and the one important to convince Lib Dems and Tories about.

@ 7:

“Funny how all these Christians don’t give a damn about torture, war mongering, bankers’ bonuses, racism and swingeing cuts in public services,”

And your evidence for that is…?

“by interfering in the most private of decisions.”

A bit question-begging, that.

@1 ” How many other MPs consider that they are in the House “because God wants them to be”? … People got any other nominations…”

For a start, how about those MPs (in all parties) who work with assistants seconded from Christian organisations? The Christians seem to have far more influence than any other grouping.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsecret/100809/memi08.htm

http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/nadine-dorries-sends-warning-to-tim-ireland-over-charity-query/

http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/links-between-christians-and-the-conservative-party-explored/

@7 “Funny how all these Christians don’t give a damn about torture, war mongering, bankers’ bonuses, racism and swingeing cuts in public services, but are prepared to make the lives of ordinary people even more wretched than they need be by interfering in the most private of decisions.”

Maybe not all, Briar, but yes, too many of these monotheists certainly do give the impression that they are more interested in other people’s sex lives, and trying to control them, than in any of the range of actual problems that the human race suffers from so terribly.

Bishop Tutu has made exactly the same point in the context of homosexuality.

Sorry, that should be Archbishop Tutu.

Why, I wonder, is the experience of a spiritual life so frequently described as containing “certainties” That is far from my experience, the rubber stamp provided by”science ” on the other hand seems to be sufficient to answer any question for its worshippers
Why, I wonder, is any concern about late abortions or the use of abortion for mere birth control supposed to be anti women ? If I had to guess I`d say women are, if anything, more likely to side with the child/ appendix than men what are the views of women and why, should their views have a special place all mothers are women but all fathers are men and children vary.

24. Leon Wolfson

@19 – Of course, those wonderful atheists like, er, Stalin…

Done stereotyping now?

@22 “the rubber stamp provided by”science ” on the other hand seems to be sufficient to answer any question for its worshippers”

Paul, what you describe here is scientism, not science.

Such is human nature, that just as there are religious believers who fail to properly understand or accord with their professed ideology, there are also far too many professed rationalists who dismally fail to be rational.

@23 Your comment appears to make no sense. Please explain.

Or is Stalin a research assistant in the HoC now?

Religion is inherently irrational, as are the religious. It’s time we disallowed these dellusional folk from being law makers.

@Paul Newman (21)

Why, I wonder, is the experience of a spiritual life so frequently described as containing “certainties” That is far from my experience, the rubber stamp provided by”science ” on the other hand seems to be sufficient to answer any question for its worshippers.

Science is NOT a religion, and it has no ‘worshipers’. Science is a school of philosophy with a tried and tested methodology (the scientific method) geared towards objective truths. Anything debate which fails to follow the principles of the scientific method, by definition, cannot arrive at an objective truth, only a subjective supposition. This has been proven time and time again over the centuries.

Scientists are the LEAST arrogant people you will meet (there will of course be exceptions to this). Their default position of a scientist is one of skepticism (a necessity, as approaching every hypothesis with gullible acceptance doesn’t not facilitate testing of said hypothesis) and the majority would rather admit they don’t know in the absence of objective and verified evidence (their educated and testable hypotheses not withstanding). When the scientific community proclaims that it knows something, it is more often than not because they actually know it. They’ve spend decades assessing gathered evidence and testing hypothesis after hypothesis to arrive at their conclusions (rather than simply reading an amalgam of edited scripts from 2000 years ago, and taking its dictates as fact).

Unlike religion, science works its arse off to uncover objective truth. The scientific community (an admitted abstract) has earned its right to prestige, else you and I would be communicating via smoke signals while wallowing in our mud huts.

Why, I wonder, is any concern about late abortions or the use of abortion for mere birth control supposed to be anti women ?

Because it demonstrably is anti-woman. The negative consequences of such subjectively derived restrictions will invariably fall on female shoulders. Males (father and unwanted children) may also be affected, but there’s no doubt that the socioeconomic impact of restrictive abortion laws/practices are visited upon woman far more frequently than men (logic alone dictates this; as woman are a necessity for abortion to even take place)

If I had to guess I`d say women are, if anything, more likely to side with the child/ appendix than men

You are making sweeping assumptions vis. both female, male and individual attitudes towards what constitutes life and person-hood. For example I don’t view a neonate as a person, it has achieved this status yet (as evidences by their failure of the mirror test, and their inability to recognise individual faces that early on). Of course a neonate is a life-form, and they should be subject to protections (as are animals), but the sentimental view that baby are born as fully-formed persons just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny (based on any reasonable definition of person-hood – which wouldn’t also apply to a baby squirrel)

what are the views of women and why, should their views have a special place all mothers are women but all fathers are men and children vary.

Should the views of anyone count when applied to another body? Why should elite men OR women (i.e. MPs) feel the need to restrict the freedoms of other men or women? Being a woman doesn’t translate into a unique qualification in and of itself (neither does being a man), and the idea that a single woman’s views (Dorries’) should or could shape legislature restricting the right of, and imposing upon ALL woman is atrocious.

Your comments regards the rights of the father (but not the unborn fetus, which has yet to achieve person-hood by any measure – it has no opinion, not even of its own existence – it’s not yet sentient at 24 weeks) enter an legally (and perhaps even ethically) grey area. In the end however, I think a woman’s right to choose and her right to medical integrity and control supersede the fathers rights over an unborn child (the alternative, forcing a woman to carry to term, sounds appalling to me!).

Whoops! Typos and grammatical error galore in my above post. Sorry everyone, hope it’s understandable.

30. Leon Wolfson

@25 – And there is no evidence that the non-religious have morals, look at the things Stalin, an atheist, did. Society is based on morals, and hence we must disallow all non-religious lawmakers.

Again, done stereotyping yet?

Oh, and let’s discuss the inherent irrationality of fiat currencies, shall we? Or of media, celebrity, team sports…

By far the best comment was made by Kismet Hardy @ comment 6.

The rest of you are sliding into the predictable slanging match between pro v anti, God v none, mad v sane and a woman’s rights v the unborn child.

Sunny’s comment 16 reveals how gloating fun is dressed up as ‘serious issues’.

@Paul Newman

“let no-one doubt that the wish to exclude moral and ethical considerations from disposing of the unborn is motivated by irrational sentiment”

Except as pointed out in the original post by Dorries herself

the ethical discussions would go round in circles because one person’s opinion is as valid as another’s

So of course they should be excluded.

As for what is or isn’t anti-women etc. this argument has nothing to do with women, men, money, power, or science this argument is created by religion from one group in essence stating that “I want to limit the decisions you can take based on the diktats of my religion” Start pondering the morality and ethics of that.

@Mike Killingworth [1]
I’d guess that almost all of the MPs who believe in God think that they are there “because God wants them to be”. Which probably adds up to a majority.

@Briar [7] “Funny how all these Christians don’t give a damn about torture, war mongering, bankers’ bonuses, racism and swingeing cuts in public services, but are prepared to make the lives of ordinary people even more wretched than they need be by interfering in the most private of decisions.”

I’m a Christian. I’m a member of a political party (the Greens) that definitely opposes all these things. And my opposition to them is based in the principles of my Christian faith. What was your problem again?

@Neil [25] “Religion is inherently irrational, as are the religious. It’s time we disallowed these dellusional folk from being law makers.”

You do realise that your proposed atheist dictatorship would be a massive violation of article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, don’t you?

@33 Green Christian. So out of curiosity how does Article 9 work when a law maker creates such based on their belief system that I, a non-believer, have to adhere to?

For example how would Article 9 prevent a law that states Sunday church attendance was now mandatory? It’s not telling me what to believe, or think; nor is it requiring me to change my religion. Just that I now have to be present within a particular type of building on a designated day.

35. Leon Wolfson

@34 – Did you know that the 7h Noahide law is a requirement to have courts of law?

“Christian Concern for our Nation.”

Oh yes straight out of the US anti abortion playbook. They love using the word “concern” Concerned woman of America is a anti abortopn front group which just happens to be financed by lots of wealthy right wing men.

These people are rabidly mad, and hate woman and womans rights. But they love war and torture. Fuck um.

9. Joe

> Of course, Dorries’ professed deep Christian morality didn’t stop her getting divorced and subsequently committing adultery with a married man, then smearing his wife in a national newspaper as an alcoholic.

But that’s what god wanted – because Dorries is only a conduit for its message. There is “nothing amazing or special about” Nadine – she’s just the Earthly emissary for the wishes and desires of the creator of the universe.

Why is this person not sectioned?

Good research, Sunny (+bloggerheads). Thanks.

It clearly exposes how the Krazy Kristians think. They know that their lunatic beliefs have no popular support, so they need to hide them and slowly push a wedge in to national legislation to move themselves closer to their Kristian theocracy wet dreams.

I hate doing it, but praise to Cameron for pulling the rug from underneath these immoral maggots.

Anuebeon said Of course a neonate is a life-form, and they should be subject to protections (as are animals), but the sentimental view that baby are born as fully-formed persons just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny (based on any reasonable definition of person-hood – which wouldn’t also apply to a baby squirrel)

Yes I would accept that a new born is , by objective and scientific categorisation , no more entitled to protection than many full grown animals. Would you agree with me then that the termination of a life after it has left the womb might easily be justified by such a reasonable approach to the human being ?

It seems to follow and does that not concern you at all ?

Anti abortion is not about saving life. It is about punishing woman who have sex.

Conservative men are very insecure and they are frightened by woman who are free from men to do what they like. This terrifies conservative men who are very inadequate and can’t deal with this. Men like to control, and conservative men like to control woman.

The anti abortion movement have admitted this by saying that as soon as they get abortion made illegal, they then want to ban contraception and all sex education. It has noting to do with life, it is all about control.

@34 FlipC
A law forcing you to attend a church meeting would certainly be a contravention of article 9. But not even the crazy extreme-fringe types like Christian Voice would dream of such things.

@38 Bluerock
“It clearly exposes how the Krazy Kristians think. They know that their lunatic beliefs have no popular support, so they need to hide them and slowly push a wedge in to national legislation to move themselves closer to their Kristian theocracy wet dreams.”

If you can find me even one example of Christians actually pushing for a theocracy from the last few decades, I’ll be surprised.

@Sally
You might actually want to meet a pro-lifer before pronouncing about the motivations of the pro-life movement. To deal with some of your wild stabs in the dark:

“Anti abortion is not about saving life. It is about punishing woman who have sex.”

I’ve never heard anything remotely resembling that sentiment expressed by any pro-lifer. Either you’re ignorant about what motivates pro-lifers, or you’re deliberately misrepresenting them.

“Conservative men are very insecure and they are frightened by woman who are free from men to do what they like. This terrifies conservative men who are very inadequate and can’t deal with this. Men like to control, and conservative men like to control woman.”

You’re stereotyping approximately 50% of the human race in that last sentence – you sure you’re not inadvertently being sexist?

Anyway, I have good friends (male and female) on both sides of the left-right divide, and can’t say that I’ve noticed any difference in the level of security they feel. And from what I can tell, there are at least as many women in the pro-life movement as there are men.

“The anti abortion movement have admitted this by saying that as soon as they get abortion made illegal, they then want to ban contraception and all sex education. It has noting to do with life, it is all about control.”

You’ll have to provide extensive citations from all sides of the pro-life movement if you want me to take that even remotely seriously. Yes, there are some pro-lifers (mostly Roman Catholics) who dislike contraception and some forms of sex education, but I’ve never seen any evidence that such sentiments are even close to the majority view amongst pro-lifers.

@everyone
Can I suggest that we try to treat pro-lifers with some respect. Disagree with us all you want, but we’re not out to be nasty. We’re not out to oppress women. We’re not anti-sex. We just believe that the unborn child is a human being, and shape our political views accordingly. If pro-lifers support a law that may reduce the number of abortions, it’s no more sinister than anti-cuts people supporting a law that will limit the damage Osborne & Co are doing to the country. This is not a witch hunt, this is a serious political issue, so can we try to at least keep the rhetoric civil.

“I’ve never heard anything remotely resembling that sentiment expressed by any pro-lifer. Either you’re ignorant about what motivates pro-lifers, or you’re deliberately misrepresenting them.”

Not my fault if you are ignorant of the real motives behind the anti abortion movement. Perhaps you should do your home work before you join an organisation. Check to see who really funds the anti abortion movement, and what you will find is right wing men.

“Can I suggest that we try to treat pro-lifers with some respect”

Why should I show you any respect? Your aim in life is take away my rights to decide what I can do with my body. I hate everything you stand for. If you are so concerned about saving lives, why don’t you go and help those people that have left a woman’s body? But then you don’t give a shit about those beings.

43. Chaise Guevara

@ 42 Sally

“Why should I show you any respect? Your aim in life is take away my rights to decide what I can do with my body. I hate everything you stand for. If you are so concerned about saving lives, why don’t you go and help those people that have left a woman’s body? But then you don’t give a shit about those beings.”

Yes, that’s right, go on frothing with hatred for anyone who dares to disagree with you about anything, then jumping to ridiculous and insulting conclusions about them based on zero evidence. It’s stood you in such good stead so far.

41. Green Christian

” Either you’re ignorant about what motivates pro-lifers, or you’re deliberately misrepresenting them.”

There is no reason to misrepresent the anti-choice position. They explicitly believe in state-sanctioned compulsory pregnancy. If someone is pregnant and they so not wish to be pregnant. The anti-choice position is that they must be pregnant. Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that they believe in compulsory pregnancy and wish to use the full force of the law to impose their beliefs on others. Sounds a bit totalitarian.

45. Just Visiting

Oh dear, Sunny and LC reveal once again their obsession with Christian bashing.

Sunny, will you ever be able to get beyond this?

Will you ever kick off LC threads with anti-Muslim or anti-any-other-religion threads based on equally flimsy facts?

46. Chaise Guevara

@ 44 Richard

“There is no reason to misrepresent the anti-choice position. They explicitly believe in state-sanctioned compulsory pregnancy. If someone is pregnant and they so not wish to be pregnant. The anti-choice position is that they must be pregnant.
Therefore, the only rational conclusion is that they believe in compulsory pregnancy and wish to use the full force of the law to impose their beliefs on others”

That may be a rational conclusion, but it leaves out a very significant factor – namely, what pro-lifers’ MOTIVATION is in being pro-life.

Sally, the troll that you’re defending here, claims that ““Anti abortion is not about saving life. It is about punishing woman who have sex”. That’s the statement that Green Christian said was a misrepresentation of pro-life attitudes. Sally is claiming, on the basis of her prejudices, that pro-lifers are motivated by a desire to punish women for having sex, whereas it would be much, much more reasonable to say that pro-lifers want to prevent the deaths of foetuses.

Flip it around. Would you think it reasonable to claim that “pro-choice isn’t about women’s rights, it’s about killing unborn children?” Or would you say that was an unfair representation of pro-choice views?

I wouldn’t say that the standard pro-life or pro-choice stance is “right” when it comes to abortion. It’s just too much of a minefield of a subject. I would say, however, that Green Christian is right when s/he asks that we at least attempt to be civil about the argument. Both sides have a bad habit of deliberately interpreting the other side’s views in the worst possible light, then using that to demonise their opponents rather than bothering to actually listen to what they’re saying.

As for “totalitarian” – you can throw that world at literally any law you disagree with. It’s a bit like how people call government policy “social engineering” when they happen not to like it.

Green Christian @ 41

I have taken the liberty of looking in at your blogg and, if I may say so, although it looks rather Spartan, I see nothing that frightens the horses. I mean nothing too startling or miles of base or anything that I would disagree with at a fundamental level at least. On the face of it I think you are a pretty level headed type of person (so what are you doing here? ? ).

I don’t really have a problem with people who appear genuinely to be Christians. The problem I have is the type of ‘Christians’ represented by Nadine Dorries et all who not appear to have the slightest bit of interest in the teachings of Jesus when it goes against the primary goal of the Tory Party, but are quick to jump up and down and frothing about Christian values when it suits them.

It is my honest belief that Christianity and the ideology of the modern (post 1980) Tory Party are completely incompatible, but that is a different thread. I see too much hatred in the Religious Right, especially from the other side of the Atlantic for there to be much about Christianity among those people.

The problem I have with the anti abortion movement* is that they seem able to bypass so many of the teachings of Christ and manage to focus a very narrow sphere, namely the bedroom and the immediate aftermath.

Why do so many many Christians appear to be so fixated with sex? Why has Nadine Dorries ever spoken out about the immorality of bankers bonuses, for example? Why do so few Christian ever bother to read about feeding the five thousand? Why do so few Christians talk about the story of the Prostitute being stoned to death? Or washing the feet of the leper or any other stories about Jesus that tell of the man’s humanity?

You ask why we are so loathed to give ‘pro lifer’ people respect? Well I can answer that. When I see the anti abortionist out campaigning against cluster bomb as vehemently as they do about abortion, then perhaps I will give them respect. Of course, they don’t because they don’t have a problem with children being blown apart by Americans, just aborted by women.

*I never use the term ‘pro life’ because whatever they are, most of them are anything but pro life. No-one who supports the murder of tens of thousands of Iraqis can call themselves ‘pro life’

Here is the curious thing. Look at the people who are anti abortion on this board. These people are normally so quick to condemn human being to live in poverty, to live in agony and/or hunger. They support the mass killing by British and American troops and would happily allow millions to starve on the African plains or watch house being washed away in Pakistan. They spit feathers at the thought of paying for childcare or even providing a home for a pregnant mother. Yet they call themselves ‘pro life’?

Tell you what, why not pass legislation banning cluster bombs and feeding Africa and then we will talk about being ‘pro life’.

49. Modest scientist

Aneubeon
“failure of the mirror test, and their inability to recognise individual faces that early on”
err, your science is several decades out of date… Mirror test was never real solid science anyway and has been replaced by more sensitive tests(though philosophical coherence of notion of personhood they are supposed to explore still in doubt) and I’m afraid newborns do recognise individual faces from day one and voices from long before. They also recognise individual tunes before 24 weeks…foetuses can’t do some things that even flies can do, but they have some capacities the smartest animals don’t have…those would be distinctively HUMAN ones. A premature baby recognises, loves and trusts its mother in a particularly human way, because that’s the sort of animal it is. As an aethist scientist, I would ask you to stop giving science a bad name by suggesting it thinks it can tell us how to act. Philosophy 101: you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.

Just visiting @ 45

Oh dear, Sunny and LC reveal once again their obsession with Christian bashing.

Not ‘Christian’ bashing just bashing a nasty person, we do that all the time.

@ 46. Chaise Guevara

I tend to think that it is pointless to assign motives to people as only the individual is truly aware of personal motivations. However, regardless of motivations it is possible to work out the actual outcomes of peoples beliefs if they were enacted. Therefore, saying that people who strive to outlaw abortion are in favour of compulsory pregnancy is an accurate conclusion.

Sally has her own unique inimical style. Although, we would probably not agree on much. She is consistently good at pointing out hypocrisy. I don’t care what people believe just so long as they are not hypocrites

” Sally is claiming, on the basis of her prejudices, that pro-lifers are motivated by a desire to punish women for having sex, whereas it would be much, much more reasonable to say that pro-lifers want to prevent the deaths of foetuses. ”

Well think about the actual effects if those who campaign to outlaw abortion were successful. It is a fair assumption that those who are pregnant and want an abortion got pregnant through sex rather than artificial insemination. Presumably an Act of Parliament criminalising abortion would also contain penalties for those who ignored the AoP. So, the woman got pregnant through sex and the abortion would have a direct link to sex. To punish her for the abortion is indirectly to punish her for having sex as the abortion is unlikely to happen without the sex. Therefore, in a convoluted way Sally is correct.

” Flip it around. Would you think it reasonable to claim that “pro-choice isn’t about women’s rights, it’s about killing unborn children?” Or would you say that was an unfair representation of pro-choice views? ”

I would say the consequences and effect that logically flow from a pro-choice position is that women retain full autonomy over their body. If more abortions therefore take place that is a by-product of the autonomy and not the intent.

Totalitarianism is defined as ” a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.” What could be more totalitarian than the state denying sentient people self-ownership over their own bodies. From where did this authority originate ?

52. Just Visiting

No Jim, you are bashing Christians in general.

> I don’t really have a problem with people who appear genuinely to be Christians.

So Jim, you yourself are now the arbiter of what is acceptable christianiaty?

The problem I have with the anti abortion movement* is that they seem able to bypass so many of the teachings of Christ and manage to focus a very narrow sphere, namely the bedroom and the immediate aftermath.

It’s called single-issue lobbying Jim. It happens on LC all the time.

> Why do so many many Christians appear to be so fixated with sex?

If you really followed that question through, and did some googling, you might stop posting such anti-christian stuff.

> Why do so few Christian ever bother to read about feeding the five thousand?

Funny, I thought Cafod, TearFund, Christian Aid all seemed concerned about the poor.

> Why do so few Christians talk about the story of the Prostitute being stoned to death?

Your evidence? Have you googled ‘women caught in adultery’ which is the title in various bible translations of that incident ? Is that not enough mentions?

> Or washing the feet of the leper or any other stories about Jesus that tell of the man’s humanity?

Evidence – have you googled for sermon MP3’s on that theme?

> When I see the anti abortionist out campaigning against cluster bomb as vehemently as they do about abortion, then perhaps I will give them respect.

Single issue’s are OK Jim – otherwise you’d have no right to criticize christians here without balancing it with criticisms of muslims and other faiths.

> Of course, they don’t because they don’t have a problem with children being blown apart by Americans, just aborted by women.

Demonize those who disagree with you, eh? Just reveals your unwillingness to true debate.

Yes I would accept that a new born is , by objective and scientific categorisation , no more entitled to protection than many full grown animals. Would you agree with me then that the termination of a life after it has left the womb might easily be justified by such a reasonable approach to the human being ?

It seems to follow and does that not concern you at all ?

Don’t be so ludicrous! There are few valid reasons to kill an animal, the only one I can think of is for food (some might say for sport, but I’m not of that persuasion). The moral taboo against other human beings remains in place, and I don’t anyone (least of all me) is advocating a change there. So why exactly do think that a recognition that neonates have all the innate person-hood of a baby squirrel would logically lead to their euphaniaation?!

I question your logical faculties, I really do. I shan’t respond to you any further, you’re clearly trolling (or thick!).

@46

Both sides have a bad habit of deliberately interpreting the other side’s views in the worst possible light, then using that to demonise their opponents rather than bothering to actually listen to what they’re saying.

To be brutally honest, minds are usually made up far in advance prior to entering the abortion debate, so you only really end up with the pretence of discussion. All the wibbling about “oh, we need a civil discussion on this topic* so we can make progress toward something or other” is just throwing your bollocks at the clock.

Indeed you might have noticed that this series of posts doesn’t bother wasting time debating the morals of abortion. Instead focusing on Nadine’s and Field’s duplicity, the negative effects the bill would have, and the dominionist angles. It’s accepted as a given that the right to access to abortion is a good thing. Regardless of all the underhand business the pro-lifers would still be compelled to vote in favour of the bill if given the chance, because their beliefs necessitate it – the ends are less murdered babies from their point of view, and thus justify the means of being somewhat careless with the truth. So why should those against the bill waste time debating them, much quicker to cut through the bullshit and call them Machiavellian Staliniods instead.

*A topic which hasn’t already been debated by pretty much everyone who gives a toss, to the extent that it’s a fucking dead horse which we can flog some more, seriously, what would make you change your mind? There a super secret argument one way or the other that you ain’t heard ten times yet, ya think?

@53 He’s also knowingly omitting the fact that when it’s growing inside a woman’s body, it’s growing inside her body, and thus adds another set of variables, such as a second person’s rights in the offing, to completely fuck up his analogy.

56. Just Visiting

Richard W

Chaise wrote:

Sally is claiming, on the basis of her prejudices, that pro-lifers are motivated by a desire to punish women for having sex, whereas it would be much, much more reasonable to say that pro-lifers want to prevent the deaths of foetuses.

You’ve not addressed his point, in your doublethink.

In fact your illogic even hit bottom with:

> Therefore, in a convoluted way Sally is correct.

@Sally 42

“Not my fault if you are ignorant of the real motives behind the anti abortion movement. Perhaps you should do your home work before you join an organisation. Check to see who really funds the anti abortion movement, and what you will find is right wing men.”

The pro-life movement is not an organisation any more than the anti-cuts movement is. It’s just a term we use to label people and organisations who take a common view on a particular issue. Yes, some of it may be funded by right-wing men. But that’s irrelevant to the motives of its members.

“Why should I show you any respect? Your aim in life is take away my rights to decide what I can do with my body. I hate everything you stand for. If you are so concerned about saving lives, why don’t you go and help those people that have left a woman’s body? But then you don’t give a shit about those beings.”

Firstly, my being pro-life is not my aim in life. Secondly, just a couple of changes to your words and any pro-lifer could express the same vitriol back at you on the grounds of wanting to kill babies. Thirdly, if you and others like you don’t show pro-lifers respect, you simply reinforce our views, make us feel victimised, and eventually turn the abortion debate into a slanging match between extremists on both sides.

@Jim 47

“On the face of it I think you are a pretty level headed type of person (so what are you doing here? ? ).”

No idea.

“The problem I have is the type of ‘Christians’ represented by Nadine Dorries et all who not appear to have the slightest bit of interest in the teachings of Jesus when it goes against the primary goal of the Tory Party, but are quick to jump up and down and frothing about Christian values when it suits them.”

Fair enough. I’m not fond of them either.

“The problem I have with the anti abortion movement* is that they seem able to bypass so many of the teachings of Christ and manage to focus a very narrow sphere, namely the bedroom and the immediate aftermath.”

I agree, but I also think that there are far fewer of that kind of Christian than we often think. The media exaggerates the focus some have on abortion and homosexuality. I can understand why some make abortion the primary Christian political issue (if all unborn children are human beings, it’s mass-murder on a scale that justifies godwinning a discussion). And homosexuality is a big theological issue mostly because it’s become symbolic of the battle between conservative and liberal theology. But even churches which tend towards preaching right-wing politics rarely major on those issues in their preaching.

It’s worth noting that there are plenty of Christians who are fixated on social justice issues. The Jubilee Debt Campaign was originally set up (as Jubilee 2000) by Christian Aid, and has consistently had churches as its biggest supporters. And churches on the ground are doing as much charitable work as any secular organisation. But few shout about it to the media, and even when they do it isn’t a big story.

“You ask why we are so loathed to give ‘pro lifer’ people respect? Well I can answer that. When I see the anti abortionist out campaigning against cluster bomb as vehemently as they do about abortion, then perhaps I will give them respect. Of course, they don’t because they don’t have a problem with children being blown apart by Americans, just aborted by women.”

You know, in a blog post I wrote about abortion the other day (but which isn’t scheduled for another couple of weeks), I say something pretty similar to what you just did. Maybe you’re too level headed to be here as well.

“*I never use the term ‘pro life’ because whatever they are, most of them are anything but pro life. No-one who supports the murder of tens of thousands of Iraqis can call themselves ‘pro life’”

I get what you’re saying there, but not using the term probably helps polarise the debate.

@Modest Scientist (49)

“As an aethist scientist, I would ask you to stop giving science a bad name by suggesting it thinks it can tell us how to act. Philosophy 101: you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’

As an atheist scientist myself I would kindly ask you not to condescend to me! If you’ve read (and comprehended) my posts you’d know that my stance rests on the idea that legislation should not be based on subjective morality (which is essentially all the pro-life lobby have ever offered) but rather on objective scientific and medical evidence (and where such evidence is lacking, a more prudent approach favoured).

I would never propose that my opinions regards the nature of person-hood should shape the legislative process in any way. To do so would be positively vial. Furthermore these were informed opinions, and nothing more. Hence I stated that I didn’t regard neonates as people, rather than stating that they weren’t people as a matter of fact. Now it has been a while since I read myself into the sciences surrounding human development, the last articles I read suggested that neonates could not recognise specific human faces (if you have a link to a refutation, I’d be more than willing to read it). That being said, my opinions regarding the status of neonates (person or non-person) is based on far more than failing the mirror test and a (possibly debunked) inability to deferential between other individuals.

The words living, human and person have very different meanings to me. I child need only bare human DNA to be human, to be a person well that much more a matter of philosophy (and perhaps science, should some reasonable definition of what differentiates human beings from other animals). Again though, for the record, I do not think that philosophy or religion should be allowed to shape restrictive legislature w.r.t. anything (abortion included).

@ 56. Just Visiting

I did address the point. That is just tough if it is not to your Christian viewpoint.

I think someone who regularly demands that any criticism of Christians must be balanced with criticisms of other religions even when they are not the point of the thread is in no position to decide what is illogical. Moreover, the minority religions do demand that the nations laws should reflect a specific religions beliefs. Your lot do.

@ 24:

“@19 – Of course, those wonderful atheists like, er, Stalin…

Done stereotyping now?”

Erm, when did I mention Stalin? I’m not sure where you get the idea that I’m stereotyping all atheists as being no better than Stalin. Unless of course you’ve just assumed that that’s the sort of thing I’d do, which would be… somewhat ironic, really.

Jim @ 47:

“Why do so many many Christians appear to be so fixated with sex?”

Media stereotyping, mostly.

“Why has Nadine Dorries ever spoken out about the immorality of bankers bonuses, for example?”

Why did Martin Luther King speak out about civil rights, but not about corrupt corporate practices? Aren’t those bad too? Doesn’t that prove that Martin Luther King was just a hypocrite, and that we can therefore dismiss his views about racial equality…?

@ 51:

“So, the woman got pregnant through sex and the abortion would have a direct link to sex. To punish her for the abortion is indirectly to punish her for having sex as the abortion is unlikely to happen without the sex.”

So is punishing parents for murdering children they don’t want any more also punishing them for having sex?

Anubeon (great name for a blog, by the way) –

I do not think that philosophy or religion should be allowed to shape restrictive legislature w.r.t. anything…

I doubt this is true. Even if you’re such a social liberal that you think that, say, incest and bestiality should be permitted, your description of yourself as a “leftie” implies (unless you’re an anarchist, and if this is the case the following may not apply) that you believe in some idea of coercive taxation. And how do you justify that without recourse to philosophical ideas like “justice”, “rights” and the like? In fact, you say right here…

To me, the medical integrity/rights of a grown woman supersede the perceived rights of an un-born and unwanted fetus.

What are “rights” if they’re not a philosophical concept? Ethics can’t be removed from politics. (Unless, of course, one is entirely amoral.)

Richard

To punish her for the abortion is indirectly to punish her for having sex as the abortion is unlikely to happen without the sex. Therefore, in a convoluted way Sally is correct.

That’s like saying that if one was to prosecute a father for incest you’d be punishing him for having kids. After all, if he’d never had the kids they’d never have, er – well – you know the rest.

Jim

Why do so many many Christians appear to be so fixated with sex?…The problem I have with the anti abortion movement* is that they seem able to bypass so many of the teachings of Christ and manage to focus a very narrow sphere, namely the bedroom and the immediate aftermath.

If you believe a life is sacred in the womb and out of it there are hundreds of millions of murders taking place. With that in mind, it’s extraordinary how MILDLY anti-abortion types behave.

@BenSix

I doubt this is true. Even if you’re such a social liberal that you think that, say, incest and bestiality should be permitted, your description of yourself as a “leftie” implies (unless you’re an anarchist, and if this is the case the following may not apply) that you believe in some idea of coercive taxation. And how do you justify that without recourse to philosophical ideas like “justice”, “rights” and the like? In fact, you say right here…

You make a good point. I was really only referring to the more subjective area of moral philosophy rather than ethical philosophy (etc…) which tends to use more reasoned and less emotive (and suspect) arguments to make its case.

The distinction between the two not as simple as I’m painting it, but gut instinct tends to tell me (and I’m sure many others) when well reasoned philosophy descends into mindless dogma, and it’s this which should not be used as a basis for forming restrictive legislature.

For the record, ideally I am an anarchist, pragmatically I am a libertarian socialist (minimal government footprint in social matters, optimal government footprint in economic matters such as regulation and wealth redistribution etc…)

Note: I draw a clear distinction between moral and ethical arguments; for me the latter distinguishes itself by drawing on rational and logical arguments more so than the prior, which relies on more emotive arguments. My own definition perhaps, but it should put the above in its proper context.

@ XXX & BenSix

I was rationalising what Sally said about punishing people for having sex and not saying that I particularly think like that. Just because one can rationalise other ways the same way does not disprove Sally’s argument.

@ 65:

If Sally’s argument leads us to such absurd conclusions, then that would suggest that it’s a bad argument and ought not to be taken seriously.

@66 Some pro-lifers actually are motivated by the desire to punish women for having sex, congregating outside abortion clinics to castigate the women entering as sluts. Well, and to intimidate em a bit as well. So sally’s argument cannot be discarded because it is very fucking true for some.

The moral taboo against other human beings remains in place, and I don’t anyone (least of all me) is advocating a change there. So why exactly do think that a recognition that neonates have all the innate person-hood of a baby squirrel would logically lead to their euphaniaation?!

Anubeon your lapse into hysterical rage does not disguise the absurdity of your position.You claim that moral taboos are in place but rely on a belief system in which a “moral taboo” has no value . The reason you do not answer me is that you have no answer as,I think, is glaringly obvious.
Modest Scientist makes a good distinction between is and ought but there is still a problem as he may well be aware
A moral philosopher can draw out an”ought ” only given a belief system from which to derive it .I may usefully examine questions like ” If I believe this, then ought I to act thusly ” , but the process cannot supply the belief that underpins the “ought ”
For example,it is entirely valid for me to point out, that if a new born baby is, in your estimation no more a person, than a baby squirrel then,ceterus paribus, you”ought ” to have no greater objection to ending its life. simple.
Your answer to this has been to import the concept of a”moral taboo” . Ok then there is a unexplained moral taboo against killing a newborn child for which there is no scientific account. Speaking as a a ” ludicrous thick troll”I find that rather interesting but I `d hate to disturb any comforting certainties you cherish.

@Paul Newman

Anubeon your lapse into hysterical rage does not disguise the absurdity of your position.You claim that moral taboos are in place but rely on a belief system in which a “moral taboo” has no value.

Erm, firstly I wouldn’t exactly call my response to your ludicrous (il)logical leap hysterical. My response was proportional to the utter stupidity of the response.

Secondly, I’m an atheist, not a savage. How on Earth you make yet another (il)logical leap, that I don’t obey widely accepted moral taboos such as those which forbid cannibalism and incest, is beyond me!

Most, if not all, widely held taboos have very clear rational and ethical justifications. The highly subjective ‘taboos’ of some religious groups rarely do (they’re based on hysterical exaggerations and dogma)

The reason you do not answer me is that you have no answer as,I think, is glaringly obvious.

Of course I have an answer for such an inane question. Limiting legal protections for neonate to those which already protect animals (which I am not for a moment suggestion we do; my opinion of where person-hood begins is precisely that – my opinion), does not mean that the widely held and heavily ingrained moral taboo against cannibalism and murder will suddenly dissolve into nothingness.

You do yourself a disservice by advancing such a weak argument!

Modest Scientist makes a good distinction between is and ought but there is still a problem as he may well be aware. A moral philosopher can draw out an”ought ” only given a belief system from which to derive it.

An ethical philosopher cannot and would not however, or more precisely, an ethical philosopher would raise an “ought” (to use Modest Scientist’s vernacular) and provide a logical and well reasoned argument for it (e.g. Adam Smiths argument that income from unproductive ‘rents’ should be highly taxed). A scientist might test that argument (e.g. gather data to prove/disprove whether such taxation dissuades economic actors from partaking in unproductive economic activity to the benefit of the productive economic activity, or else benefits the productive economy through wealth distribution), but will not accept it as fact until its various predictions are proven.

To my mind, the distinction between moral and ethical philosophy and science is thus; moral philosophy relies solely on emotive arguments (and that’s fine for guiding you personally), an ethical philosophy relies on an un-emotive argument supported principally by reasonable and logical deduction, and science isn’t about arguments at all, it’s about discovering objective truth. I have no problem with the latter two forming the debate on abortion law but raw morality adds little to the debate and cannot alone be allowed to form the debate and certainly not our laws.

As I said before, these are my own distinctions/definitions. They may not correspond with the generally accepted definitions. However, the above should place my thoughts in context.

I may usefully examine questions like ” If I believe this, then ought I to act thusly ” , but the process cannot supply the belief that underpins the “ought ”
For example,it is entirely valid for me to point out, that if a new born baby is, in your estimation no more a person, than a baby squirrel then,ceterus paribus, you”ought ” to have no greater objection to ending its life. simple.

Whilst I understand your reasoning, I think you’ve misunderstood what I’ve been saying. Our own personal moral views should never direct the formation of laws. They could and should inform our behaviour however. I may view a neonate as a non-person (from an objective standpoint), but that does not negate the emotive and moral position held my many (myself included) which says we ought to protect our young (neonates are still young humans) from harm (it’s a natural imperative).

Ethically and morally however, I can not resolve a situation whereby a pregnant woman would be forced to carry to term, simply because of the perceived rights of an unborn fetus. Under those circumstances I think viability is the best objective measure we have to set a legal limit on abortions (and I think we’ve got it right with the 24 week limit). That being said, if medical viability is the limit (and it is purported to be), I see no ethical reason why induced labour (and later, adoption) couldn’t be permitted after this limit.

Reducing the debate on abortion law to ‘fetuses are people’ and ‘abortionists are murderers’ as many pro-lifers essentially do (although, the sensible don’t use such inflammatory phrases) helps nobody. Someone ends up

Your answer to this has been to import the concept of a”moral taboo” . Ok then there is a unexplained moral taboo against killing a newborn child for which there is no scientific account.

1. Moral taboos are a sociocultural phenomenon.
2. Such sociocultural phenomena can be explained using cultural materialism (there are logical explanations for most taboos when viewed from the framework of a cultures sustainability)
3. No, science does not have an explanation for such phenomena (cultural materialism uses logical deduction, as far as I can tell it cannot be tested) but neither does it (or do I) claim to do so.

Speaking as a a ” ludicrous thick troll”I find that rather interesting but I `d hate to disturb any comforting certainties you cherish.

I hold precious few certainties. However, neither do people like Frank Field and Nadine Dorries. They may think that they do, but their moral opinions are just that, opinion. Thrusting your minority opinions (as it seems few would welcome restrictions to abortion law) down other peoples throats in the form of restrictive legislature is appalling behaviour.

As far as I can work out then, your opinion on infanticide would be that’ legally’ it should be a matter of personal choice although you would strongly disapprove of it due to the influence of socio cultural factors ?

Overall my decision is not to ask you to do any baby sitting for me Anubeon

it doesn’t need to… Dorries does it herself.

I’m no expert on Christian denominations, but isn’t the Alpha Course run to recruit people to the Church of England? That’s hardly an “extremist” or “fundamentalist” outfit, is it?

As far as I can work out then, your opinion on infanticide would be that’ legally’ it should be a matter of personal choice although you would strongly disapprove of it due to the influence of socio cultural factors ?

Have you have a lobotomy or something? I explicitly stated that I did not want my opinions regarding person-hood and neonates to form legislature (they are my ethical opinions, and only that!). Furthermore there are ethical, as well as moral, arguments against infanticide (such as the shear waste of ending a viable human life – with all of its inherent potential).

The reason I don’t apply the same arguments of wasted potential to a pre-viable fetus? Well I do, however the rights of the mother and the consequences of violating her medical integrity so (i.e. forcing her to carry an unwanted child to term) supersede those arguments. In fact, they do even at viability, which is why I suggested induced labour (barring medical contra-indications – which suggests non-viability to me) as an alternative to abortion (as it seems to me that induced labour would be less traumatic at such a late stage than an abortion – although those with a more practical understanding of abortions and induced labour would be better judges to pronounce on that).

Also, yes, my overall gut response to incidences of infanticide is a moral one (much as anyone else – I don’t hate babies!), but that doesn’t preclude the existence of valid ethical arguments also (which makes legislation against infanticide desirable). Is that clear enough for you!

Overall my decision is not to ask you to do any baby sitting for me Anubeon

Please, don’t breed!

I explicitly stated that I did not want my opinions regarding person-hood and neonates to form legislature (they are my ethical opinions, and only that!)

Sorry, I didn’t mean ‘ethical opinions’, I meant ‘considered attempt at forming an objective and scientific opinion/understanding’. Apologies.

71. Flowerpower

> …isn’t the Alpha Course run to recruit people to the Church of England? That’s hardly an “extremist” or “fundamentalist” outfit, is it?

It’s used as an indoctrination tool by many of the Xian cult chapters, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_New_Church_Movement

Regardless of who ran Dorries’ Alpha Course, you judge her by her actions. She’s a sneaky, dishonest, hypocritical Krazy Kristian – the UK’s Michele Bachmann.

Sally is claiming, on the basis of her prejudices, that pro-lifers are motivated by a desire to punish women for having sex, whereas it would be much, much more reasonable to say that pro-lifers want to prevent the deaths of foetuses.

It’s very easy to tell whether someone is genuinely motivated by a desire “to prevent the deaths of foetuses” – you ask them what their positions on access to contraception, reproductive health care, and comprehensive sex education are. Given that much of the so-called “pro-life” movement in the US is now starting to work on restricting access to contraception and reproductive health care, and they’ve long been strong advocates of “abstinence only” sex (mis-)education, we either have to discard the hypothesis that they “want to prevent the deaths of foetuses” or conclude that they’re complete idiots.

How one is to tell you irrelevant opinions from your desperately important ones defeats me Anubeon. I think you are saying that at the moment of birth depth-less sagacity becomes merely an opinion of no importance.Why not the moment of conception ?
I already have three boys who are thankfully well past the dangerous squirrel stage . I have not had a lobotomy, I can recognise myself in the mirror and feel pain so back off and take your bag and cudgel with you.

How one is to tell you irrelevant opinions from your desperately important ones defeats me Anubeon.

None of my (or your, or their) opinions are so desperately important that they should form the basis of legislation. How many times, and in how many different ways do I have to reiterate that to you, you abject fool!

Legislature should be based on evidence, where possible, and reasoned debate where impossible. Injecting emotion and subjective morality into the equation makes for very shoddy legislature. Injecting minority morality into the equation makes for damned oppressive legislature.

I think you are saying that at the moment of birth depth-less sagacity becomes merely an opinion of no importance.Why not the moment of conception ?

Why not the moment of conception?! Are you serious?! I just answered that above!

However, an a futile attempt to clarify my position to you (yet again!); The perceived rights of an unborn fetus do not supersede those of its host (a fully formed person who can feel a full range of emotions, pain and can express a medical preference) and certainly not to the extent that said host should be compelled by law to carry an unwanted fetus to term. Viability adds an additional factor into the equation. Protecting the rights of the host prior to viability necessitate abortion, at viability this is not neccissarily the case. Abortion is then still an option (technically), but then so is induced labour (as far as I am aware; although as I’ve said before those with more vocational knowledge of abortions and induced labour are better placed to know this).

I already have three boys who are thankfully well past the dangerous squirrel stage . I have not had a lobotomy, I can recognise myself in the mirror and feel pain so back off and take your bag and cudgel with you.

If you had a reading comprehension greater than that of a 5 year old, or at least the humility to recognise that you haven’t a bloody clue how to comprehend English, I would have held back the insults. As it stands, your successive demonstrations of utter idiocy shrouded in the ever-confident language of someone who thinks their dreary and exaggerated interpretations of my opinions are anything but desperate hyperbole have convinced me to got with the insults.

I really see little point re-engaging you on this topic. Either the above will clarify my stance to you, or you (yet again) will fail to comprehend. If the prior, then great; if the later, then I confess – I don’t enjoy playing swings and roundabouts with imbeciles.

@ 58:

“I would never propose that my opinions regards the nature of person-hood should shape the legislative process in any way. To do so would be positively vial [sic].

OK then, so if I were to decide that Jews or black people don’t count as humans, should the law not prevent me from going out and killing a few?

@ 67:

“Some pro-lifers actually are motivated by the desire to punish women for having sex, congregating outside abortion clinics to castigate the women entering as sluts. Well, and to intimidate em a bit as well. So sally’s argument cannot be discarded because it is very fucking true for some.”

First of all, calm down and stop swearing. Second of all, so what? No doubt some socialists are motivated by their desire to go on a power trip and boss other people around, some pro-choicers are motivated by their desire to annoy religious people, and some atheists are motivated by petulance at the fact that their lives aren’t perfect. If I were to imply that these people were representative of the wider socialist, pro-choice and atheist movements, I’d (quite rightly) be derided for it. Why should pro-lifers be treated any differently?

Just Visiting @ 52

So Jim, you yourself are now the arbiter of what is acceptable christianiaty?

For me, yes. That is why I said that ‘I’ didn’t have a problem with people who appeared [to me] to have genuine Christian beliefs. I thought that the [to me] part needn’t have been written as it was clearly explaining my opinion to a poster who appears (to me at least) to have genuine Christian beliefs.

Hope that clears that up.

It’s called single-issue lobbying Jim. It happens on LC all the time.

I have nothing against single issue politics, if that is what you are about, but why use the Nebulous term ‘pro life’ when you are nothing of the sort? Why not just stick to the term ‘anti abortion’, because that is what you are, you do not campaign for ‘life’ you campaign for a very specific issue, ‘anti abortion’.

Isn’t funny that you people are always the ones banging on and on about ‘PC gone mad’ when someone dare use the term (or merely someone alleges that the such a term exists) ‘differently abled’ or whatever but you people cannot bring yourselves ‘anti abortionists’. Why is that? Why are you ashamed to admit the truth?

Funny, I thought Cafod, TearFund, Christian Aid all seemed concerned about the poor.

You are right of course and I have disputed the fact that many Christian groups DO campaign on this and similar issues, but we are talking about the anti abortionists, I have already said that I do not have a problem with people I personally feel are genuine in their beliefs, it is the fixated nutters I have a problem with. Look at the people who are anti abortion on this threat. Most of the more common Right Wingers who contribute to this blogg do not strike me as compassionate people, quite the opposite in fact. I would go as far as saying that most of the Right who are anti abortionist here are quite the most unpleasant people with the most misanthropic views.

Demonize those who disagree with you, eh? Just reveals your unwillingness to true debate.

Demonize? Who is trying to Demonize anyone? Show me these anti abortionists who also campaign against bombing Iraq or land mines?

OK then, so if I were to decide that Jews or black people don’t count as humans, should the law not prevent me from going out and killing a few?

What the hell are you people on!

Let me reiterate (once more for XXX), I would never propose that my opinions regards the nature of person-hood should shape the legislative process in any way. To do so would be positively vile.

So yes, of course the law should prevent you, me and anyone else from acting so atrociously. You are of course free to hold such repugnant views as racism and antisemitism (however much I and the rest of civilised society might despise you for it). Just as I am free to hold to a reasoned view of neonates as mere potential people. You are not however free to act with malice and kill or harm the objects of your (hypothetical) race hatred, anymore than I am free to kill or harm neonates (which I wouldn’t want to do anyway!*).

Also, I rather resent the implicit insinuation that racism and antisemitism are on a par with a reasoned estimation of neonates as having yet to achieve full person-hood. They are not, and using such an emotive argument in such an asinine way sails perilously close to the winds of Godwin’s Law.

*NoteMy views on neonates do not in any way equate to an affirmed hatred of them. It is simply a rational assessment of their qualifications (or lack thereof) to the philosophical rank of person. I would no more wish harm to a neonate than I would any animal or fully grown human being who has in my view achieved person-hood. So please, stop acting as if I’ve suggested we kill all unwanted neonates, or treat them like livestock. I haven’t!

XXX @ 61

Why did Martin Luther King speak out about civil rights, but not about corrupt corporate practices? Aren’t those bad too? Doesn’t that prove that Martin Luther King was just a hypocrite, and that we can therefore dismiss his views about racial equality…?

Martin Luther King died forty years ago, seriously dude, let it go.

@74. BlueRock

“[The Alpha Course i]s used as an indoctrination tool by many of the Xian cult chapters, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_New_Church_Movement

It’s used as an introduction to Christianity across the spectrum – by everybody from Pentecostals to Roman Catholics.

And whilst much of the New Church Movement may be a cult by the strict no-value-judgement sociological definition. It’s a perfectly respectable part of the mainstream of British Christianity, and no more a cult by the common usage pejorative definition than any other variety of Christianity.

“Regardless of who ran Dorries’ Alpha Course, you judge her by her actions. She’s a sneaky, dishonest, hypocritical Krazy Kristian – the UK’s Michele Bachmann.”

I’d agree that you can judge her politics by her political stances. Though, regardless of her politics, she certainly seems to get an overly raw deal on this site – the typical reaction to anything she says is to use it as an example to castigate her. It’d be nice to, just once, see Sunny (or, for that matter, any other regular contributor) say some nice things about her, Mad Mel, or any of the other right-wingers who appear to get this sort of treatment. Just to avoid getting into that dangerous territory of demonising the other side.

@ 80:

“You are not however free to act with malice and kill or harm the objects of your (hypothetical) race hatred, anymore than I am free to kill or harm neonates (which I wouldn’t want to do anyway!*).”

I’m not free to do so, because the law prevents me. Your position, however, implies that this law is unjust, and ought to be modified to let me kill any groups I consider “sub-human”.

“*NoteMy views on neonates do not in any way equate to an affirmed hatred of them. It is simply a rational assessment of their qualifications (or lack thereof) to the philosophical rank of person. I would no more wish harm to a neonate than I would any animal or fully grown human being who has in my view achieved person-hood. So please, stop acting as if I’ve suggested we kill all unwanted neonates, or treat them like livestock. I haven’t!”

You might not want to, but your position implies that people who do want to shouldn’t be stopped by law.

“Also, I rather resent the implicit insinuation that racism and antisemitism are on a par with a reasoned estimation of neonates as having yet to achieve full person-hood. They are not, and using such an emotive argument in such an asinine way sails perilously close to the winds of Godwin’s Law.”

Showing that your opponent’s logic can lead to some ridiculous conclusions is a perfectly valid part of debating.

@79 Jim

“Demonize? Who is trying to Demonize anyone? Show me these anti abortionists who also campaign against bombing Iraq or land mines?”

Most of them do so as part of separate groups devoted to those issues, so aren’t easy to point at. Two prominent examples of people in this camp are Jim Wallis (most well-known for his book God’s Politics – he’s clearly against abortion, and was a leading critic of Bush’s foreign policy.) and Pope John Paul II (who had a consistently pro-life view on a very wide range of issues).

@ 79:

“I have nothing against single issue politics, if that is what you are about, but why use the Nebulous term ‘pro life’ when you are nothing of the sort?”

Probably for the same reason that pro-choicers use the term “pro-choice” despite not being pro-all choice (how many pro-choice advocates would say that you should be able to, for example, choose whether or not to obey the law, or to pay taxes?): namely, that it sounds nicer.

@ 81:

“Martin Luther King died forty years ago, seriously dude, let it go.”

No, the point of the analogy was that it’s ridiculous to call someone a hypocrite just because they don’t campaign about every single issue in whatever checklist you happen to come up with. Maybe it was a bit too subtle for you, though.

2005 YouGov- Britons’ feelings toward abortion by gestational age are:

2% said it should be permitted throughout pregnancy
25% support maintaining the current limit of 24 weeks
19% support a limit of 12 weeks
9% support a limit of fewer than 12 weeks
6% responded that abortion should never be allowed
30% would back a measure to reduce the legal limit for abortion to 20 weeks
(proposed by one Nadine Dorries in 2008)

So who is imposing a minority held view then ?
I think the suggestion that an inability to experience a full range of emotions reduces you human value has interesting implications but I`d rather not be responsible for a spontaneous combustion event so lets leave it eh.

I’m not free to do so, because the law prevents me. Your position, however, implies that this law is unjust, and ought to be modified to let me kill any groups I consider “sub-human”.

No it doesn’t you fool! Kindly read my previous responce to Paul Newman (@77) for some background (hint: legislation=law).

You might not want to, but your position implies that people who do want to shouldn’t be stopped by law.

Again, no it doesn’t!

There are sound pragmatic and ethical reasons not to simply allow killing and other acts of violence against people, neonates and livestock. I support legislation which outlaws it.

Showing that your opponent’s logic can lead to some ridiculous conclusions is a perfectly valid part of debating.

Showing that you don’t understand your opponents logic, and then extrapolating out from your own flawed interpretation there of is a perfectly valid way is discrediting yourself as a debater.

You clearly haven’t comprehended anything I’ve written in this thread XXX, and frankly your obtuse misrepresentations of what I’m arguing speak more of you, than they do of me.

Richard W @51

I tend to think that it is pointless to assign motives to people as only the individual is truly aware of personal motivations. However, regardless of motivations it is possible to work out the actual outcomes of peoples beliefs if they were enacted.

I think it reasonable to draw conclusions from what they say and why they say it and what, if anything they propose to do about it.

It is reasonable to assume that people who describe themselves as ‘pro life’ should have a consistent opinion on cluster bombs, drought in Africa the murder of Iraqi children, whooping cough vaccinations etc. If they have no opinion or have wildly inconsistent opinions, I think it is perfectly acceptable to examine the true motivations behind someone who shows rank hypocrisy and draw our own conclusions.

If we have people who single out the deaths of unborn children in an operating theatre, yet have made little comment on other children who die via carpet bombing or a mass drought, then is it an unreasonable hypothesis that such people are reacting, not to the death of a child but the motivation behind such death? If so, is it unreasonable to conclude that such person is objecting to the sexual conduct of the mother?

2005 YouGov- Britons’ feelings toward abortion by gestational age are:

2% said it should be permitted throughout pregnancy
25% support maintaining the current limit of 24 weeks
19% support a limit of 12 weeks
9% support a limit of fewer than 12 weeks
6% responded that abortion should never be allowed
30% would back a measure to reduce the legal limit for abortion to 20 weeks
(proposed by one Nadine Dorries in 2008)

So who is imposing a minority held view then ?

Erm… you and the pro-life lobby are. You’ll note that all of those opinions are minority opinions. The general public is undecided, with broad support for the current 24 weeks or a reduction to 20 weeks. This is not in itself surprising given the amount of hyperbole and emotive rhetoric (commissioned by pro-life organisations) doing the rounds in 2005. In the absence of a general consensus, the only logical decision is to leave the current legislation (which has served us well for ~25 years now) alone, else risk unleashing the tyranny of a potentially poorly informed minority (whichever minority, from the above data, that might be).

Also, in the absence of a general consensus it would be interesting to know what the feeling amongst medical practitioners was (as these are professionals who know a hell of a lot more about the process and the issues than the general public do). My recollection of the last abortion ‘debate’ was that the BMA was broadly in support of keeping the current 24 week limit.

I think the suggestion that an inability to experience a full range of emotions reduces you human value has interesting implications

That was not was not what I was saying and you know it. Hence the phrase ‘can express emotions’ was used in conjunction with ‘pain’ and ‘can express a medical preference’. If any one of those qualities alone were absent, it wouldn’t be a problem. However, if anyone were in a position where they couldn’t express a medical preference, experience pain or emotions, then yes, by definition their ability to make medical decisions for themselves is severely limited (which is why under such circumstances, the courts often get involved).

…but I`d rather not be responsible for a spontaneous combustion event so lets leave it eh.

Actually you’ll find that I can be rather reasonable when treated in kind. However you (and now XXX) have chosen to misrepresent my, make snide insinuations from those misrepresentations and general build straw men left, right and centre. If behave like a dick, I’m going to call you on it.

So, as you say, lets leave it. ¦:-|

XXX @ 85

Jesus wept. Fucking think about it for a second. We are talking about the abortion debate. What the fuck could ‘pro chioce’ in that context be? How could ANYONE with an IQ above that of a tree think otherwise?

It is a simple point. Many of us are in no way ‘pro abortion’ because that is not how we feel, I believe that a women should have the right to choose whether or not they want an abortion, I do not have a view on whether any abortion is right or wrong, I am not ‘pro abortion’ in that sense. I would leave it for the mother to decide.

‘Pro Life’ is an completely different concept all together, it implies that the person is ‘pro’, ‘life’ yet many anti abortionists are anything but ‘pro life’.

No, the point of the analogy was that it’s ridiculous to call someone a hypocrite just because they don’t campaign about every single issue in whatever checklist you happen to come up with.

THEY CALL THEMSELVES ‘PRO LIFE’, FOR FUCKS SAKE!!!!!!!!!

These people use terms like murder, slaughter etc and yet we see millions of people murdered every year and they stay silent. How the fuck can you have an opinion on the death of child during an abortion yet NOT have a consistent opinion on a child killed in a bombing run? How on Earth can you ignore that? On what logical grounds can you demand action against one but not the other, if you call yourself ‘PRO LIFE’?

@ 87:

“There are sound pragmatic and ethical reasons not to simply allow killing and other acts of violence against people, neonates and livestock. I support legislation which outlaws it.”

At which point the hypothetical Neo-Nazi might reply “Well, yes, I agree that there are very good reasons for not killing people, so naturally I support laws against murder. But Jews are people; they’re sub-human animals. So, whilst I support prosecuting people who kill other people, killing Jews doesn’t count as ‘killing other people’, and therefore the law should let me do just that.” What are you going to say in reply? I don’t really see what you can say, other than that Jews are in fact people, killing them is in fact murder, and people who do so should consequently be prosecuted for murder. What is this if not imposing your own views of personhood on other people? If you’ve found some way of stopping them with imposing your definition of personhood on them, I’d be glad to hear it.

Also, you’ve accused pretty much everybody who’s disagreed with you on this thread of deliberately misunderstanding your arguments. Has it occured to you that, if we’re all misunderstanding you, that might be because you’re not explaining yourself clearly?

@ 89:

“Also, in the absence of a general consensus it would be interesting to know what the feeling amongst medical practitioners was (as these are professionals who know a hell of a lot more about the process and the issues than the general public do). “

They might know more about the process, but that doesn’t imply that they know more about the moral aspects of abortion.

@ 90:

First of all, I’d see a doctor if I were you. Your blood pressure must be dangerously high.

Secondly–

“Jesus wept. Fucking think about it for a second. We are talking about the abortion debate. What the fuck could ‘pro chioce’ in that context be? How could ANYONE with an IQ above that of a tree think otherwise?”

Well what do you think “pro-life” would mean? Especially given that the term has been round long enough and is common enough usage that pretty much everybody’s heard it and knows what it means. I’m struggling to see why you think it’s any more misleading than the term “pro-choice” is.

“These people use terms like murder, slaughter etc and yet we see millions of people murdered every year and they stay silent. How the fuck can you have an opinion on the death of child during an abortion yet NOT have a consistent opinion on a child killed in a bombing run? How on Earth can you ignore that? On what logical grounds can you demand action against one but not the other, if you call yourself ‘PRO LIFE’?”

You keep making that assertion, but I’ve yet to see you provide any evidence whatsoever for it. Until you do, I’ll assume that you don’t actually have any evidence, and that your claims are just wishful thinking based upon your own bigoted, hate-filled little worldview.

At which point the hypothetical Neo-Nazi might reply…

Yadda! Yadda! Yadda!

At this point XXX you have crossed unabshedly across the line, you have actually violated Godwin’s law. This is not one of those very rare occassions when comparisons to Naziism is valid.

‘Debate’ over! ¦:-|

82. Green Christian

> …the strict no-value-judgement sociological definition.

Are you suggesting that those who don’t believe in the invisible sky daddy have no values?! Careful. The atheists may get even more militant.

The Fluffy CoE Xians legitimise the Krazy Xians. Same with Muslims. Same with pretty much every significant religious group. Far too often the extremists hide amongst the ‘hobby religious’. It’s all part of the same cult that needs watching carefully. In my humble opinion.

> …regardless of her politics, she certainly seems to get an overly raw deal on this site…

No, not “regardless”. Because of. She gets a “raw deal” all over the interwebs. But lots of people didn’t wake up one morning and spontaneously decide to pick on poor, little Nadine for no reason. She’s a congenital liar with a devious, nasty agenda. There’s no reason for anyone to make a special effort to say nice things about her.

That goes double for the vile Melanie Phillips, a poisonous creature. Reminds me of my school RE teacher, may she burn in the hell that she imagined was real.

> Just to avoid getting into that dangerous territory of demonising the other side.

If pointing out the truth leads to “demonisation” then it’s no good blaming the messenger.

Don’t worry, the atheists aren’t planning to emulate religious methods of suppression – a literal witch hunt, a stoning or re-enactment of the Spanish Inquisition. We just want these Bronze Age sociopaths kept away from the vulnerable, the young and the levers of power.

96. Chaise Guevara

@ 51 Richard

“I tend to think that it is pointless to assign motives to people as only the individual is truly aware of personal motivations. However, regardless of motivations it is possible to work out the actual outcomes of peoples beliefs if they were enacted. Therefore, saying that people who strive to outlaw abortion are in favour of compulsory pregnancy is an accurate conclusion.”

Yes, it is, and if that was the statement you were defending I would never have disagreed with you in the first place.

“Sally has her own unique inimical style. Although, we would probably not agree on much. She is consistently good at pointing out hypocrisy. I don’t care what people believe just so long as they are not hypocrites”

No, Sally is good at making up shit about other people then calling them hypocrites because their genuine beliefs “contradict” the made-up beliefs she’s accused them of having.

“Well think about the actual effects if those who campaign to outlaw abortion were successful… Therefore, in a convoluted way Sally is correct.”

Only by shifting the goalposts and ignoring motivation. Seriously, as I said above, I don’t deny that most pro-lifers support a state of affairs that include compulsory pregnancy. You could call that a “punishment” for having sex, sure… but that’s your interpretation, NOT the motivation of pro-lifers.

To be honest, you seem quite reasonable, and you’d probably do a lot better if you stopped defending this troll’s indefensible statement.

“I would say the consequences and effect that logically flow from a pro-choice position is that women retain full autonomy over their body. If more abortions therefore take place that is a by-product of the autonomy and not the intent.”

EXACTLY! Likewise, the consequences that logically flow from a system that gives human rights to foetuses include an attack on female autonomy. But that is a by-product, not the intent. “Pro-choicers love killing foetuses” is exactly as fair a statement as “pro-lifers love enslaving women” – in other words, it’s not a fair statement at all.

All I’m asking for here is for people to be reasonable, not to apply different standards to the side they support. If you judge choicers by their intent, you should do the same for lifers. Otherwise you’re simply not having a sensible conversation.

“Totalitarianism is defined as ” a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.” What could be more totalitarian than the state denying sentient people self-ownership over their own bodies. From where did this authority originate ?”

Um, there are a hell of a lot of things I can’t do legally do with my body. Can’t steal, can’t drink and drive, can’t tell damaging lies about other individuals, whatever. By that logic this and every state is already totalitarian.

The reason for all this, obviously, is that the actions of my body can affect another person’s body, and therefore should be restricted in some ways – this, morally speaking, is where the authority to legally restrict my movements originates. Now, from a pro-life perspective, “another person” could include a foetus, and hence banning abortion is no more totalitarian than most of the laws we have now.

I’m guessing you don’t think a foetus is a person, and fair enough. But pro-lifers DO, so it’s disingenuous to accuse them of being totalitarian on that basis. This is another side of the “sensible conversation” thing I’m pushing for here: it’s unreasonable to judge people assuming they share your view of an issue, especially as you know for a fact that they don’t.

97. Chaise Guevara

@ 54 Cylux

“To be brutally honest, minds are usually made up far in advance prior to entering the abortion debate, so you only really end up with the pretence of discussion. All the wibbling about “oh, we need a civil discussion on this topic* so we can make progress toward something or other” is just throwing your bollocks at the clock.”

Well, yes, you have a point, and this is why I avoid any thread that contains both the words “Israel” and “Palestine” like the fucking plague.

98. Chaise Guevara

@ Anubeon

“At this point XXX you have crossed unabshedly across the line, you have actually violated Godwin’s law. This is not one of those very rare occassions when comparisons to Naziism is valid.”

Um, that’s not breaking Godwin’s law. He didn’t compare you to the Nazis, he used the Nazis as an analogy.

@96 Aye, can’t fault ya there.

xxx @ 95

You keep making that assertion, but I’ve yet to see you provide any evidence whatsoever for it.

Evidence of what? Evidence of Nadine Dorries NOT saying something about carpet bombing? Evidence of Operation rescue NOT campaigning outside an army base? Evidence of the anti abortionists not describing soldiers as child murderers? Evidence of of people NOT doing something? Come on!!!

Okay is George W Bush and his soldiers responsible for murdering children? Yes or No will suffice.

Um, that’s not breaking Godwin’s law. He didn’t compare you to the Nazis, he used the Nazis as an analogy.

He invoked neo-Nazis in a snide attempt to discredit my arguments; same difference. He could have used any analogy, or he could have engaged me on the issue at hand, instead he opted for a Nazi shaped straw man. Furthermore, his analogy isn’t even a true analogy! There is no objective evaluation of a Jewish human that wouldn’t also apply to an Arian human, the two groups are indistinguishable bar negligible genetic differences. This cannot be said of neonates and grown adults, or even neonates and toddlers (there are profound developmental differences).

In any case, based on XXX conduct here (with both myself and others), I’m not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. His last post may to fit the letter of Godwin’s law, but it does fit its spirit IMO.

His last post may not fit the letter of Godwin’s law, but it does fit its spirit IMO.

Correction, it does fit the letter of Godwin’s law:

In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.1

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Semantics perhaps, but I’m petty like that. :-p

@94. BlueRock

“Are you suggesting that those who don’t believe in the invisible sky daddy have no values?! Careful. The atheists may get even more militant.”

No, I’m suggesting that the definition of a cult used by sociologists doesn’t have the pejorative connotation of the definition used by the general public. Sorry for my poor wording.

“The Fluffy CoE Xians legitimise the Krazy Xians. Same with Muslims. Same with pretty much every significant religious group. Far too often the extremists hide amongst the ‘hobby religious’. It’s all part of the same cult that needs watching carefully. In my humble opinion.”

By the same logic, the fluffy social democrats legitimise the extremist Stalinists. If you want to stamp out the crazy extremes, don’t pile on the moderates, as you’ll just make them more sympathetic to the extremists, and tend to move more of your own side towards the extremes. The Dawkins approach to religion is, at best, counter-productive.

“No, not “regardless”. Because of. She gets a “raw deal” all over the interwebs. But lots of people didn’t wake up one morning and spontaneously decide to pick on poor, little Nadine for no reason. She’s a congenital liar with a devious, nasty agenda. There’s no reason for anyone to make a special effort to say nice things about her.

That goes double for the vile Melanie Phillips, a poisonous creature. Reminds me of my school RE teacher, may she burn in the hell that she imagined was real.”

I guess my point was that the way they are treated by this site and several other leftie ones makes them look somewhat victimised. It would be a nice change to try and find something agreeable about them. The current amendment under debate is an attempt to separate counselling for pregnant women from abortion providers. It would prevent one apparent conflict of interest, and yet the only people on the interwebs who aren’t treating it as absolute evil are the right-wing blogs (seriously, Cranmer comes across as having a more balanced view than LibCon – and that’s a sentence I’m very surprised to be using). More constructive criticism of her proposals, rather than outright hatred, would give a much better impression of the site.

“If pointing out the truth leads to “demonisation” then it’s no good blaming the messenger.”

It’s not just the content, it’s the tone. There’s no recognition of the possibility that these people might occasionally be acting out of good intentions, but simply have a different worldview.

“Don’t worry, the atheists aren’t planning to emulate religious methods of suppression – a literal witch hunt, a stoning or re-enactment of the Spanish Inquisition. We just want these Bronze Age sociopaths kept away from the vulnerable, the young and the levers of power.”

I’m sure you’ll leave the questionable methods to your fellow atheists in China and North Korea. :p

@Jim

I gave you two relatively prominent examples (John Paul II and Jim Wallis) of pro-lifers who have expressed exactly the kind of sentiments you want. For more on this kind of approach see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_Ethic_of_Life

@Anubeon
The analogy was between two situations where one group of people says “X are human beings and should, therefore, be treated well” and another group says “X are not human beings and, therefore, can be treated any way I like”. In one case you say that the “are human beings” camp is indisputably right, and in the other you say that the judgement is less clear (remind me: what’s the clear difference between a foetus at 9 months and a baby that was born yesterday?). That doesn’t make the analogy invalid. In both cases the two camps are saying essentially the same thing. The only difference is the question of how strong the evidence is for either side.

@ 93:

“Yadda! Yadda! Yadda!

At this point XXX you have crossed unabshedly across the line, you have actually violated Godwin’s law. This is not one of those very rare occassions when comparisons to Naziism is valid.”

Read my post again. I never compared you or anyone else to Neo-Nazis. I was simply continuining an analogy I made in a previous post to show that your logic, if applied consistently, would lead to unacceptable consequences, such as allowing Neo-Nazis to kill other people with impunity.

@ 100:

“Furthermore, his analogy isn’t even a true analogy! There is no objective evaluation of a Jewish human that wouldn’t also apply to an Arian human, the two groups are indistinguishable bar negligible genetic differences.”

You may think that those differences are “negligible”, but what would you do to stop somebody who thinks otherwise, without in any way imposing your own view of personhood on him?

@ 99:

That will be a “no”, then.

“Okay is George W Bush and his soldiers responsible for murdering children? Yes or No will suffice.”

If any American soldiers deliberately killed children, then yes, they are. If George W. Bush knowingly ordered American soldiers to kill children, then yes, he is. If they didn’t, then no, they’re not.

107. Leon Wolfson

@94 – Ah right, the religious need to be “watched”. More stalinist atheism, I see.

“Don’t worry, the atheists aren’t planning to emulate religious methods of suppression”

No, just atheist ones, which strangely enough have slaughtered a lot of people, in recent history no less. Your kind of fanaticism and intolerance is just as bad as any Islamists or Moral Majoritan.

Your casual use of the word “sociopath” shows the danger which you pose to a modern, advanced, tolerant society.

Chaise Guevara You claim I am talking balls, but do you deny that the Catholic Church, which opposes abortion, is also against contraception? The religious right in America which is mostly Protestant is also opposed to abortion, and it is also now against contraception outside of marriage. It promotes abstainism, and is opposed to sex education in schools.

If saving the fetes is their major issue , as the anti abortionist claim, why do they go to such trouble to try and stop various things that would cut pregnancy? There is nothing new here , the church , as with most religions is hostile to woman and woman’s rights. Eve was to blame in the garden of Eden according to these nuts. When you hear the relish that anti abortionist in the US say that even in a rape case, a pregnant woman must take the fetes to term, you might not think that these people are quite so reasonable.

They hate liberated, sexually free woman, who want to control their own lives, and they want to make life difficult for them. Ban abortion, then ban contraception, and you make sex and the chance of pregnancy a risky business. These people rail against abortion and feminism. They fucking hate woman. And I fucking hate them. If you don’t like that, well tough. It is not your body that want to control.

Moronic brown shirt troll …… “If George W. Bush knowingly ordered American soldiers to kill children, then yes”

Well he did, because he started the war, and lunched “shock and awe.” A TV spectacular set for Prime Time US TV, With all the horror of modern weapons. He wanted to blow shit up to make people think what a big man he was.

But thanks again for proving that pro life supporters don’t care a shit about life.

GC @ 102

I gave you two relatively prominent examples (John Paul II and Jim Wallis) of pro-lifers who have expressed exactly the kind of sentiments you want.

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with that, but they do not represent the majority of anti abortionist Christians, do they? Among that group you will find little or no compassion.

XXX @ 104

That is an evasion and you know it. GWB and those pilots who flew those sorties knew that pregnant women where living there or at least it is reasonable to assume that pregnant women where there. It was reasonable to assume that dropping bombs would lead to civilian casualties and that pregnant women would be among the dead.

So, I ask again, if they knew they were killing innocent people, including unborn babies, should the ‘pro life’ brigade been campaigning against these murders? Should returning pilots of those airstrikes be labelled murderers?

In simple terms, is it your contention that an unborn child killed in an abortion is a murder, whereas an airstrike that kills unborn children are not murdered? Why I am not suprised?

111. Paul Newman

The Survey obviously shows a clear majority favour reducing the current limit from 24 weeks to 20 or lower. Despite the fact that about 70% of those who expressed an opinion supported the proposed 2008 amendment it was defeated by the HOP. The antiquity of the legislation is hardly an issue as it was last visited in 1990
So the minority pro abortion view is being inflicted on the majority who are increasingly concerned at late terminations. I would locate myself pretty centrally in the spectrum of opinion I `d reduce to 20 weeks now but with a view to reviewing the matter in the future – Those who favour 24 weeks and above are a shrill minority.
On the claims of the medical profession to moral authority ..ahem … Physicians joined the Nazi party in disproportionate numbers and lent both their efforts and their authority to Nazi eugenic and racist programs ( You will recall that Marie Stopes herself was a eugenicist suspected anti Semite and attended a Nazi Sponsored conference in 35). Not a good line to take .
I think if you look back at this thread the main message is the almost unhinged violence of the pro abortion lobby who seem incapable of reasonableness once their sacred cows are threatened . No-one is suggesting that abortion be ended , what is suggested is a rebalancing way from our unusually anti life dispensation

If you look across Europe you get a better idea. We are out of line with the overwhelming majority; Germany , France and Italy Belgium Bulgaria Austria , the Czech republic Denmark Estonia Greece Hungary Lithuania Poland etc. all set the limit at 12 weeks others are stricter, Ireland , Holland is 13 weeks and even Sweden 18 weeks.

The vast majority seem to take the sensible view that 3 months is ample time for a decision to be made . The supposed 20- 24 week norm is an illusion . It was sponsored by David Steele and if there is any evidence that the British people ever supported the ultra pro abortion laws we have I cannot see it . David Steele and his Liberals were electorally irrelevant at the time.
Were we in line with our neighbours the debate would centre on 12 weeks .

You either support abortion or you don’t. The reduction in time is just salami slicing. As soon as it reduces to 20 weeks the antis will start demanding 18 weeks, and so on.

Good to see that the Paul Newman troll hates freedom for woman. We should remember this when he his spewing his small govt bullshit.

Paul Newman @109

The Survey obviously shows a clear majority favour reducing the current limit from 24 weeks to 20 or lower.

Then why not publish something in a manfesto, instead of skulking around with this Dorries bullshit? If you cunts had a backbone between you you could publish a Bill to cut abortion, but you won’t because you know your arses would be toast.

So the minority pro abortion view is being inflicted on the majority who are increasingly concerned at late terminations.

Eh? I mean fucking eh? Surely to fuck the only people seeking late abortions are those people who actually want late term abortions. No-one is being forced into abortions at plus 24 weeks. If they don’t want late abortion don’t have one, what is wrong with that?

Physicians joined the Nazi party…

If all else fails, drag out Hitler, what a sad life you must have. Everything is not Hitler.

No-one is suggesting that abortion be ended

Paplable lie from the Tory vermin again. Not an honest bone in your body.

We are out of line with the overwhelming majority;

And?

As I say, if you think you got a majority, put up or shut up.

@ 107:

“But thanks again for proving that pro life supporters don’t care a shit about life.”

So wait, saying that ordering the killing of civilians makes you a murderer proves that pro-lifers don’t care about life? Sorry, could you perhaps run that past me again?

@ 108:

“Oh, don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with that, but they do not represent the majority of anti abortionist Christians, do they? Among that group you will find little or no compassion.”

Of course, you still haven’t provided any evidence that this is the case.

“In simple terms, is it your contention that an unborn child killed in an abortion is a murder, whereas an airstrike that kills unborn children are not murdered? Why I am not suprised?”

Not entirely sure how “Soldiers who deliberately kill civilians are murderers” translates to “Killing civilians isn’t murder”. Care to explain your logic [sic] to me again?

@ 111:

“If all else fails, drag out Hitler, what a sad life you must have. Everything is not Hitler.”

The reference seems valid to me. What exactly is wrong with it?

“Paplable lie from the Tory vermin again. Not an honest bone in your body.”

Given that there aren’t any proposals to ban abortion, it’s not a lie at all.

Also, and in the certaintly of getting Godwinned, “vermin” is exactly the sort of language the Nazis used to use about the Jews. The fact that you use it so often is actually rather worrying. And don’t give me any of that “I’m just speaking from personal experience” rubbish. Hitler claimed that “harsh reality made me an anti-Semite”. That doesn’t make his views any less repugnant.

@ 110:

“You either support abortion or you don’t. The reduction in time is just salami slicing.”

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

117. Paul Newman

Jim do you think the 67 Act an unheralded private members bill lacks legitimacy then ?Many would agree with you.On your point about those seeking late abortion wanting them well, of course, if their fate was the only consideration we would not have a problem.
In a way I am surprised you do not feel any inclination to stand up for the powerless party in this equation, the one which cannot speak for his or her self ?

101. Green Christian

Back from the pub. Coherence and eloquence diminished. Soldiering on.

> ..I’m suggesting that the definition of a cult used by sociologists doesn’t have the pejorative connotation of the definition used by the general public.

That’s debatable. I’m certain that a wide range of [apply your own label to a demographic] have a dim view of religious cults. Christopher Hitchens: Religion Poisons Everything. A lot of truth in that. We need only open the newspaper each day to see the evidence.

> …fluffy social democrats legitimise the extremist Stalinists.

That is such nonsense that I have no response.

> …don’t pile on the moderates, as you’ll just make them more sympathetic to the extremists…

Really? Sane people calling out the crazies makes the ‘hobby religionists’ become more crazy? That’s a damning indictment of how weak-minded the religious are.

> The Dawkins approach to religion is, at best, counter-productive.

http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts – it’ll take you a few hours to read through them all. :)

> …the way they are treated by this site and several other leftie ones makes them look somewhat victimised.

Only if you irrationally sympathise with them. Also, criticism of Nadine is spread far and wide. This is not a partisan political issue. She’s a lying nut job.

> It would be a nice change to try and find something agreeable about them.

Hitler was kind to his dog. As much as I’m fond of dogs, I still struggle to find him agreeable. [Note: this is not Godwin's Law, it's an extreme analogy to prove a point.]

> The current amendment under debate is an attempt to separate counselling for pregnant women from abortion providers.

The cut-off for abortion is a matter for science / doctors. It is set at 24 weeks. If or when a woman aborts is up to her and her doctor – within that limit. Not for devious, toxic liars like Nadine Dorries and her Xian hordes.

> It’s not just the content, it’s the tone.

Those who are exposed never like the “tone”.

> …these people might occasionally be acting out of good intentions…

I’m sure that inside that twisted psyche, Nadine thinks she’s acting with the best intentions. Just like she thinks she is “just a conduit for God to use”. For those who imagine the same sky daddy, this might seem reasonable. To the rest of us, she’s as mad as a box of frogs.

> I’m sure you’ll leave the questionable methods to your fellow atheists in China and North Korea. :p

Ooh. That’s weak. Whatever has happened in China or North Korea has not been done in the name of atheism.

And in all of this meandering thread, no one has refuted the plain facts of what Nadine Dorries is up to. A toxic, dangerous person who wishes to impose her twisted, superstitious Bronze Age morals on 60 million people. Fuck her – and not in the friendly way.

105. Leon Wolfson

> …the religious need to be “watched”. More stalinist atheism, I see.

lol. I wondered when the hyperventilating, hyperbolic Xian victims would appear. :)

Modern, secular atheists (and many non-atheists) simply wish to keep religious talons out of children, education, government… and women’s reproductive organs. You can chant your incantations, sing your prayers, pray to your invisible sky daddy as much as you want. Just do it on your own time, in the privacy of your own homes and clubs.

> …atheist ones, which strangely enough have slaughtered a lot of people

Who has killed in the name of atheism? Who has justified atrocities in the name of *not* believing in a deity?

Rhetorical question. No one. Stalin had a moustache. You may as well blame his moustache as his (alleged) lack of belief.

> Your kind of fanaticism and intolerance is just as bad as any Islamists or Moral Majoritan.

You are making me laugh. My “fanaticism”?! I can’t be bothered to support a football team, let alone join some Bronze Age cult.

> …the danger which you pose to a modern, advanced, tolerant society.

Cower before me! Tonight Devon, tomorrow the world!!1!

120. Chaise Guevara

@108 Sally

Green Chrisitan =/= the Vatican. And it’s a bit pointless asking why Catholics et al are against contraception, even though it would mean fewer abortions – they’re following religious rules. Religious rules have this habit of not making sense.

121. Chaise Guevara

@101 Anubeon

“He invoked neo-Nazis in a snide attempt to discredit my arguments; same difference. He could have used any analogy, or he could have engaged me on the issue at hand, instead he opted for a Nazi shaped straw man.”

He really, really didn’t. A “straw man” is when you misrepresent your opponent’s beliefs to create an easier target. He didn’t – he said that, following your reasoning, it would logically follow that we shouldn’t intervene if a neo-Nazi wanted to kill Jews.

Note that he WASN’T claiming that was your belief, he was pointing out a perceived flaw in your logic by using it to take you somewhere you presumably wouldn’t want to go. That’s called reductio ad absurdum.

“Correction, it does fit the letter of Godwin’s law…”

Yeah, turns out you’re right. But I generally hear the concept used to refer to comparing one’s opponent to the Nazis (“Hitler supported a smoking ban!” “The Nazis believed in evolution!”). You’re right about the wording, but if Godwin’s law just means making ANY comparisons to the Nazis, it’s a bit pointless. The only problem with Nazi references is when people try to make out that their opponent is like the Nazis based on a flimsy justification.

BlueRock @ 118:

“That’s debatable. I’m certain that a wide range of [apply your own label to a demographic] have a dim view of religious cults. Christopher Hitchens: Religion Poisons Everything.”

Erm, what exactly does Christopher Hitchens have to do with anything?

“That is such nonsense that I have no response.”

It’s no more nonsense than claiming that religious moderated legitimise religious extremists.

“The cut-off for abortion is a matter for science / doctors.”

Why? Just because they know more about how the procedure is carried out, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they know more about whether the procedure should be carried out.

“It is set at 24 weeks. If or when a woman aborts is up to her and her doctor – within that limit.”

At the moment it is. But that doesn’t in any way prove that it should be.

“Ooh. That’s weak. Whatever has happened in China or North Korea has not been done in the name of atheism.”

If the various atrocities you point out were truly motivated by religion (and not by bigotry, desire for power, etc., with religion providing a veneer of legitimacy), then we’d expect non-religious countries to commit fewer atrocities than religious ones. That this is not the case suggests that religion is not in fact the root cause of these atrocities.

“And in all of this meandering thread, no one has refuted the plain facts of what Nadine Dorries is up to. A toxic, dangerous person who wishes to impose her twisted, superstitious Bronze Age morals on 60 million people.”

But aren’t most laws attempts to impose morality on others? We have laws outlawing slavery, for example, or protecting employees’ rights. Should we get rid of those too?

Also, what does a set of morality being “Bronze Age” have to do with anything? Bronze Age people were against theft and murder; is anybody who dislikes these things wrong because they’re subscribing to “Bronze Age morality”?

@ 119:

“Modern, secular atheists (and many non-atheists) simply wish to keep religious talons out of children, education, government…”

Of course, the official Soviet position on religion was that people were allowed to be religious, they just weren’t allowed to be religious in public or teach their children about it. Sort of ironic that you accuse someone of hyperbole when they compare you to Stalin, and then express the sorts of opinions that wouldn’t be out of place in the USSR…

123. Chaise Guevara

@ XXX

“Of course, the official Soviet position on religion was that people were allowed to be religious, they just weren’t allowed to be religious in public or teach their children about it. Sort of ironic that you accuse someone of hyperbole when they compare you to Stalin, and then express the sorts of opinions that wouldn’t be out of place in the USSR…”

Be fair here – there’s a big difference between keeping religion out of state affairs and schools, and outlawing public displays of religion. The first is a form of secularism, the latter is rather fascist.

@ 123:

Well yes, but talk of “keeping religious talons out of children” seems to imply going rather further than just ending RE lessons or disestablishing the Church of England or whatever else is felt necessary to keep religion out of public affairs.

125. Chaise Guevara

@ 124 XXX

Yeah – it’s a phrase open to various interpretations. I can actually see the argument for outlawing people from preaching religion to kids, but I wouldn’t advocate that position. Cure’s way, way worse than the disease.

122. XXX

> Erm, what exactly does Christopher Hitchens have to do with anything?

Clearly you didn’t take Jim’s advice @ 91: “Jesus wept. Fucking think about it for a second.”

“Christopher Hitchens: Religion Poisons Everything. A lot of truth in that.”

I quoted Hitchens to make a point. You can tell that because I added “A lot of truth in that.” after the quote. Also, it’s (part of) the title to a book he wrote. I’d recommend that you read it, but… stony ground.

The rest of your comment is similarly obtuse, padded out with a collection of strawmen built on selective quoting, non sequiturs and tired, old religiot canards that have been skewered a thousand times before. It’s just tedious.

You come across as someone who likes the sound your keyboard makes but doesn’t waste much energy on thinking. You’ve got your beliefs, you like them and that’s as far as you go. I guess that’s how you maintain your belief in sky fairies.

P.S. Looks like Dorries is failing while her dishonest agenda is exposed – yet again: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/02/anti-abortion-critics-nadine-dorries

127. Chaise Guevara

@ 126

If you’re going to accuse someone of using straw men, probably best not to accuse them of believing in “sky fairies” in the same post. Just sayin’.

127. Chaise Guevara

As clueless as ever.

@ 126:

“I quoted Hitchens to make a point.”

Though what the point is, and how a three-word quotation by Christopher Hitchens is supposed to prove anything about the sociological definition of the term “cult”, is something I’m still struggling to understand. Care to explain it to me?

“I’d recommend that you read it, but… stony ground.”

I did. I found it unconvincing.

“The rest of your comment is similarly obtuse, padded out with a collection of strawmen built on selective quoting, non sequiturs and tired, old religiot canards that have been skewered a thousand times before. It’s just tedious.”

Where exactly have I used these things?

Also–

“a collection of strawmen… your belief in sky fairies.”

I hope the irony here is intentional?

129. XXX

> Where exactly have I used these things?

I’ll humour you. Just once.

> …it doesn’t necessarily follow that [science / doctors] know more about whether the procedure should be carried out.

You’re arguing against a strawman that science / doctors should make the decision of whether to abort when I clearly said that “If or when a woman aborts is up to her and her doctor…”

Although, it might sometimes be a decision made by a doctor if the pregnancy is a threat to the health of the mother.

Fuck knows who you think should be making these decisions. Nadine Dorries? Pastor Bob? The pope?

> I hope the irony here is intentional?

There is no irony because there is no strawman. It’s possible my *assumption* is incorrect – but then why are you expending so much time churning out tedious Xian apologetics if you’re not part of the cult? Rhetorical question. I have no interest in your answer.

“they’re following religious rules. Religious rules have this habit of not making sense.”

Which is exactly why you should keep them out of making political decisions. But you seem more than happy to try to indulge them. Increasingly the bigoted, selfish, and dam right nasty are using religion to opt themselves out of the law. If you are a fundamentalist Christian don’t get a job at a secular registry office.

When people wave their religious books in my face and tell me that this how I should live it means nothing to me. They might as well be brandishing postman pat.

132. Chaise Guevara

@ 128 Bluerock

“As clueless as ever.”

Treasure the fool’s reproach and all that. Look, this is what a straw man is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You’re welcome!

133. Chaise Guevara

@ 131

“Which is exactly why you should keep them out of making political decisions. ”

It’s not really that simple. Ideally, I’d like to live in a world where every action of the government was based on reason, but if you’re running a democratic (or even non-democratic) country, you have to find that “goldilocks zone” where enough people are grudgingly on your side to keep you in power.

“But you seem more than happy to try to indulge them.”

Care to unpack that statement?

“Increasingly the bigoted, selfish, and dam right nasty are using religion to opt themselves out of the law.”

To be fair, more often they try and fail – see those homophobic B&B owners, or those equally homophobic Catholic adoption agencies.

“If you are a fundamentalist Christian don’t get a job at a secular registry office.”

Sally, there are genuine nuances to this debate. Workers’ rights are important, and they don’t get sacrificed just because the worker in question is religious. I don’t recall any story about a registry office, but I remember issues arising when anti-contraception chemists were told they had to sell the pill.

If you take a job that involves doing things that are against your religion or morality, that’s your own lookout. But if they change the job, after you’ve already started working there, you may have a case if you refuse to comply.

“When people wave their religious books in my face and tell me that this how I should live it means nothing to me. They might as well be brandishing postman pat.”

Well, yes, more power to your elbow.

132. Chaise Guevara

As I said, as clueless as ever. Linking to a wiki page doesn’t help you.

@ 130:

“You’re arguing against a strawman that science / doctors should make the decision of whether to abort when I clearly said that “If or when a woman aborts is up to her and her doctor…””

You specifically said “The cut-off for abortion is a matter for science / doctors”, implying that it’s up to scientists/doctors to determine how late in a pregnancy abortion should be allowed. I’m not sure how taking your words at face value is straw-manning you.

“Fuck knows who you think should be making these decisions. Nadine Dorries? Pastor Bob? The pope?”

No, Parliament.

“There is no irony because there is no strawman. It’s possible my *assumption* is incorrect – but then why are you expending so much time churning out tedious Xian apologetics if you’re not part of the cult?”

It may have escaped your notice, but most Christians — and, indeed, most religious people in general — don’t believe in “sky faries”, whatever those might be. So yes, there is a straw man here.

@ 134:

At least he knows enough about other people’s beliefs to know when they’re being strawmanned, which is more than I can say for you.

137. Chaise Guevara

@ 134 Bluerock

“As I said, as clueless as ever.”

Look, if your only response to criticism is to throw playground insults around, could you at least try to mix it up a bit instead of using the same one twice in a row? That’s childish AND boring.

“Linking to a wiki page doesn’t help you.”

Yes, god forbid someone should know what they’re talking about and provide a source to back it up. You can prove ANYTHING with facts! But no, by all means ignore the link and keep making a fool out of yourself by shouting “straw man” while simultaneously straw-manning someone else.

137. Chaise Guevara

You’re much the same as XXX – your ability to use a keyboard far exceeds your ability to think. You grasp hold of a concept and are utterly incapable of realising you were wrong from the outset – even though it’s been explained already. Keep digging! :)

@118. BlueRock

> That’s debatable. I’m certain that a wide range of [apply your own label to a demographic] have a dim view of religious cults. Christopher Hitchens: Religion Poisons Everything. A lot of truth in that. We need only open the newspaper each day to see the evidence.

How does that relate to the difference between the (technical) usage of the word “cult” in a sociology paper or book and the usage of the word by the man on the street?

>Really? Sane people calling out the crazies makes the ‘hobby religionists’ become more crazy? That’s a damning indictment of how weak-minded the religious are.

No. “sane” people accusing the moderates of legitimising the moderate versions of a belief, and applying the same rhetoric against the moderates as they do against the extremes (as Dawkins et al do) makes those moderates feel under attack, makes them more likely to drift towards the extremes, and less likely to sympathise with the people labelling their point of view the only sane one. Take a look at how the anti-Islamic rhetoric and activity that goes under the banner of the War on Terror has radicalised many Muslims. It’s the same principle.

> http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts – it’ll take you a few hours to read through them all. :)

What just the one list?

>Only if you irrationally sympathise with them. Also, criticism of Nadine is spread far and wide. This is not a partisan political issue. She’s a lying nut job.

What if you rationally sympathise with them on the grounds that they’re human beings? Or think that the approach of frequently pointing to all the bad things about somebody makes it much more difficult to win over people like them to your side of the argument?

>Those who are exposed never like the “tone”.

Actually, that’s not true. You can point out how somebody’s wrong in a tone that doesn’t prevent them and their supporters taking that message onboard.

>Ooh. That’s weak. Whatever has happened in China or North Korea has not been done in the name of atheism.

Their suppression of religious beliefs was done in the name of atheism. Lenin claimed that “Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism”. The suppression of religons under communist regimes was done at least in part out of atheism. Which makes the comparison at least as valid as your Spanish Inquisition comparison that I was responding to.

>And in all of this meandering thread, no one has refuted the plain facts of what Nadine Dorries is up to. A toxic, dangerous person who wishes to impose her twisted, superstitious Bronze Age morals on 60 million people. Fuck her – and not in the friendly way.

You know, I’m not entirely sure I can work out why the belief that an unborn child is a human being should be considered to be a “Bronze Age morality”. Given that people were happily abandoning unwanted babies (after birth) to die of exposure well into the Iron Age, and that abortion only really became an issue once modern medicine gave us ways of doing it that genuinely worked and didn’t risk killing the mother, you seem to be placing the morality in question far earlier than history would suggest.

Plus, I can’t help wondering whether you object to all moral views that have their roots at least as far back as the Bronze Age (e.g. “stealing is wrong” or “murder is wrong”).

140. Chaise Guevara

@ 138

An orginal insult! Well done! Next lesson: basic logic and not being a dick. You’ll want to take careful notes here.

141. Chaise Guevara

“What if you rationally sympathise with them on the grounds that they’re human beings? Or think that the approach of frequently pointing to all the bad things about somebody makes it much more difficult to win over people like them to your side of the argument?”

This for the win. Seriously. It’s the point I’ve been trying to make, but much better put.

139. Green Christian

> What just the one list?

It only required one to show that your claim that “The Dawkins approach to religion is, at best, counter-productive.” was nonsense.

> …(as Dawkins et al do) makes those moderates feel under attack, makes them more likely to drift towards the extremes…

Really? Dawkins blunt language turns fluffy Xians in to fanatics? Well, I always did think you needed to be a bit weak-minded to fall for the Xian fairy tale.

> What if you rationally sympathise with them on the grounds that they’re human beings?

Oh, you’re concerned about Nadine’s *feelings*? Simple solution: she can stop being a sociopathic liar who wants to dictate what women can and cannot do with their own bodies based on her twisted morality that is derived from some Bronze Age fairy tale.

> You can point out how somebody’s wrong in a tone…

You’re stepping perilously close to looking like a tone troll.

> Their suppression of religious beliefs was done in the name of atheism.

Bull. Shit. Stalin – who trained to become a priest – purged the churches because they threatened his total control of the state. He didn’t suppress religion in the name of atheism, he suppressed it in the name of Jospeh Stalin’s political ideology.

Double bull shit that you’re trying to tie atheism to the mass murders committed by the lunatic.

It’s been years since I last bothered debating Xian apologists. The arguments are the same, piss-weak nonsense.

> …I’m not entirely sure I can work out why the belief that an unborn child is a human being should be considered to be a “Bronze Age morality”.

Who said that? Not me. It’s looking as though you’re as incapable of reading and responding to what is written as the other numpties in this thread. Or perhaps it’s intellectual dishonesty and you know you’ve created a strawman?

A non-viable foetus is not “an unborn child”. Medical science has drawn the line at 24 weeks. Don’t like it? Produce some science to refute it.

140. Chaise Guevara

I know you try really hard to look intelligent – but you’re just an empty vessel making lots of noise. There was no strawman and therefore no irony. You won’t improve yourself if you don’t acknowledge and learn from your mistakes. Give it a go, chief. :)

141. Chaise Guevara

> This for the win. Seriously.

How old are you? 12? Like totally for real?! ;)

No surprise that you’d think ‘tone’ is more important than facts and reality. You and your Xian chums can keep whining about how mean everyone is to you, the rest of us will keep telling the truth.

145. Leon Wolfson

@119 – “religious talons out of children, education, government… and women’s reproductive organs. ”

So, let’s look at the consequences of implementing that statement;

* Forced removal of children from religious parents
* Banning discussion of religions from schools (because RE teaches *about* religions and philosophies, not belief in them)
* Banning anyone religious from holding public office and voting

Never mind that I accept the public health argument for the availability of abortion. No, I am religious so I am evil in your view. Never mind that many of the people who strongly oppose abortion are humanists.

“Who has killed in the name of atheism? Who has justified atrocities in the name of *not* believing in a deity?”

Since you are drawing the line at “anyone religious”, I am drawing the line back at “anyone not religious”. If you think that’s overly broad and inappropriate – no shit, why were you doing it in the first place?

It only takes a few encounters with the people who take the sort of nonsense you sprout seriously to come to this conclusion. Modern society should be tolerant at it’s heart. You’re *very* far from the light of the camp-fire of civilisation as far as I’m concerned. Part of the wolves in the dark.

As is Dawkins, who WAS a good scientist, but has chosen to become an intolerant and hateful politician. A sad descent for someone who was once great.

145. Leon Wolfson

> Forced removal of children from religious parents

lol. You religiots do love your strawmen and building up your hysterical persecution complex.

No, we just need to stop the religious cults from grooming and indoctrinating children in public schools. If their parents are stupid enough to inflict it on them, that’s their choice and they can do it in their own time.

147. Chaise Guevara

@ BlueRock

“I know you try really hard to look intelligent – but you’re just an empty vessel making lots of noise. There was no strawman and therefore no irony. You won’t improve yourself if you don’t acknowledge and learn from your mistakes. Give it a go, chief.”

Awww! You think you can trick everyone even what your straw man is still plainly there to see up-thread! That’s almost adorable.

Blue Rock’s guide to being proved wrong:

1) Insult everyone in sight.
2) Lie about what you just said.

“How old are you? 12? Like totally for real?! ”

Yeah, because only children say supportive things about things they support. Well done. Your playground insults are coming along swell, by the way. I expect you’ll have advanced to calling me “pooey pooface” within the week.

“No surprise that you’d think ‘tone’ is more important than facts and reality.”

More straw men? If you’d just take the time to follow that link I gave you, you’d know what straw men actually are and be able to stop making yourself look silly like this.

“You and your Xian chums can keep whining about how mean everyone is to you, the rest of us will keep telling the truth.”

“Xian chums”? I have to admit I honestly don’t get your obscure insult (are you accusing me of being Taoist or something?), although I suspect it’ll be an inaccurate portrayal of me that you’ve concocted to give yourself something to attack. That’s called a stra- never mind, your brain apparently can’t handle this concept.

BlueRock @ 142:

“It only required one to show that your claim that “The Dawkins approach to religion is, at best, counter-productive.” was nonsense.”

And how many potential supporters of Dawkins do you reckon have been turned off by his rhetoric?

“Really? Dawkins blunt language turns fluffy Xians in to fanatics? Well, I always did think you needed to be a bit weak-minded to fall for the Xian fairy tale.”

Yeah, I can’t imagine why anybody would be reluctant to support somebody who constantly insults them, accuses them of legitimising mass murderers, compares them unfavourably with child molesters…

“You’re stepping perilously close to looking like a tone troll.”

So advocating that people keep to basic standards of politeness and decency is “trolling” now, is it?

“Bull. Shit. Stalin – who trained to become a priest – purged the churches because they threatened his total control of the state. He didn’t suppress religion in the name of atheism, he suppressed it in the name of Jospeh Stalin’s political ideology.”

Firstly, I’m not sure what you’re trying to insinuate with that “Stalin trained to become a priest” comment. If you’ve got anything to say, say it, don’t hide behind innuendoes and implications.

Secondly, Soviet ideology came from Marxist ideology, which stated that the eradication of religion was necessary to create the ideal communist society. The Soviets specifically justified their persecution of religion in terms of this idea. So I think it would be fair to say that they were motivated at least in part by their atheism.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that this was just an excuse, and the real reason was that the Church threatened Stalin’s control of Russia. But then you could make similar arguments about most religious persecutions, so…

“Who said that?”

You did: “And in all of this meandering thread, no one has refuted the plain facts of what Nadine Dorries is up to. A toxic, dangerous person who wishes to impose her twisted, superstitious Bronze Age morals on 60 million people.”

“A non-viable foetus is not “an unborn child”. Medical science has drawn the line at 24 weeks. Don’t like it? Produce some science to refute it.”

What does and does not count as a human is primarily a philosophical question, not a scientific one. You can provide all the evidence you like that a foetus is viable only after 24 weeks (actually closer to 20 now, with various medical advances over the last 40 years), but why should viability be the benchmark? That’s not a question science can answer. So just waving scientific evidence around isn’t enough without some philosophy to back it up.

@ 143:

“There was no strawman and therefore no irony.”

You referred to my “belief in sky faries”. I do not believe in any such entities, nor does mainstream Christianity — or, indeed, any major religion. So yes, that was a straw man, and the fact that you can’t see it reflects poorly on your intellectual rigour.

147. Chaise Guevara

I love the way you completely fail to understand what is happening, grab the first thing that pops in to your frantic head and then build your entire hysterical ranting on that.

V. funny. :)

149. XXX

Ooh, I can’t resist. You’re as clueless and certain as the previous idiot.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sky+fairy

@ 151:

“Ooh, I can’t resist. You’re as clueless and certain as the previous idiot.”

Certain and clueless about what, exactly? Because with all due respect, I think I know what my own beliefs are better than you do, and I’ll thank you not to tell me what I do and do not believe in.

153. Chaise Guevara

@ 150 BlueRock

What’s to understand? You’re a grumpy loser who throws his toys out of his pram when someone disagrees with him and thinks childish insults and straw men are a clever way to conduct a debate. I’ve got a pretty good handle on that, as does pretty much everyone else who’s encountered you here. I don’t normally wind up pointless trading insults with people like this, but that’s because while many people are either arseholes or laughably incapable of logical thought, few people combine the two flaws in such massive quantities as you.

And now I’m bored, I’d rather go talk to the grownups. Feel free to claim you “won” the argument by acting like such a pillock that the other person got fed up of talking to you.

153. Chaise Guevara

When you’ve completely misunderstood what has happened, linking to a wiki page definition compounds your error.

Until you start accepting your mistakes, you will keep making them. Your hysterical ranting does not mitigate your stupidity.

I thought God was a sky fairy, lots of people lining up to claim they don’t believe in him/sky-fairies though. Must be the New-Atheists.

@ 154:

What “error” has he allegedly committed?

@ 155:

“I thought God was a sky fairy,”

You thought wrong.

“You thought wrong.”

Oh goody, a troll is going to prove that God exists and in what form. I will get my popcorn, this will be priceless.

He lives in the heavens – therefore the descriptive ‘sky’, and is never seen to or had any sort of demonstrable effect on the world or universe – except for the claims of a few weirdo eccentrics, a bit like fairy’s at the bottom of the garden.

Also, despite showing plenty of negative character traits in the bible you never seem to find any believers who happen to actually disagree with their God, I have yet to see anyone declare that God’s purported animus toward gay people was wrong and God should be ashamed of himself should he believe otherwise, indeed God seems to fully conform to any particular believer’s set of morals, ideals and prejudices on any given matter. One might conclude that God was created in man’s image and most certainly not t’other way round.

159. Chaise Guevara

@ 158 Cylux

“Sky fairy” is a perfectly good term if you’re doing a send-up of religion, but accusing people of actually believing in a sky fairy is basically a straw man. I sometimes call Easter “Zombie Jesus Day” but I wouldn’t actually accuse Christians of worshipping zombies.

I’m afraid Sally might end up a little disappointed: this is neither the time nor the place to try and prove God’s existence, and I don’t intend to try. I will, however, try and clear up a few of Cylux’s misconceptions about God and “sky faries”.

For a start, God (as believed in by most major religions) does not “live in the heavens”, any more than the architect who designed my house lives in my attic; in fact, He doesn’t live anywhere. Any creator god would have to be a separate entity to the universe which He created, just like a carpenter is a separate entity to a piece of furniture he creates or an autor is a separate entity to a book he writes. So God doesn’t have a physical existence in the universe, and hence describing Him as living “in” anything is inaccurate. For the same reason, describing Him as being like a physical object — say, a fairy — is also inaccurate.

As for the rest of Cylux’s post: if you believe that God is the source of morality, it follows that the terms “what is moral” and “what behaviour God wants” are synonymous. You can’t say “X is moral, but God doesn’t like it”, because if God doesn’t like it, then it can’t be moral. You might as well say “scientism is correct, but I don’t think there’s a scientific explanation for everything”, or “genocide is always wrong, but I think we should round up and exterminate all the Jews in this country”. It’s just logically incoherrent. So anybody who claims to be a divine command theorist (the ethical theory held by mainstream Christianity) who also claims that God’s commands are wrong about something is being illogical.

158. Cylux

It’s difficult to choose a favourite, but I think this is mine:

> And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

> And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Yup. God murdered 42 children because they laughed at someone’s bald head. I guess some baldy fuckwit monk who’d been mocked by some kids in the village wrote that bit. :D

And that, dear religiots, is a prime example of why the sane and informed mock you and want to stop you nutters getting anywhere near children or positions that influence national policy.

That anyone with a modern education could believe the bible (or any ‘holy’ book) is anything other than collected fairy tales, written by men (and it *is* always men) is laughable and frightening in equal part.

[Cue XXX now believing that I think he wants to send bears to murder children.]

159. Chaise Guevara

> “Sky fairy” is a perfectly good term if you’re doing a send-up of religion, but accusing people of actually believing in a sky fairy is basically a straw man.

You’re *so* close now. Keep going, son. Join the dots.

163. Chaise Guevara

@ 160 XXX

Regarding morality, I think Cylux’s point is that people who follow a religion but disagree with its conventional moral code (homophobia being a good example in most current versions of Christianity) are likely to reinterpret their god as actually agreeing with their morality. So they say that they follow their god’s morality, but the causative relationship is that they’ve “designed” their god to follow theirs.

Both your and Cylux’s points are valid, and they don’t contradict each other – in fact, avoiding that logical inconsistency you describe is probably why people decide why their god agrees with their personal views.

@160

if you believe that God is the source of morality

Fred Phelps certainly does.

165. Chaise Guevara

@ 162

Ah, you’re using a special definition of “sky fairy” as apparently defined by those well-known experts-on-everything at Urban Dictionary. How very rational and helpful.

“Sky fairy” is generally used as a sneery way of misrepresenting the beliefs of religious people, so if you’re going to use the special version and expect everyone to know you’re using it, it would be a good idea to say so. Otherwise you’re still just an immature arsehole straw-manning Christians.

165. Chaise Guevara

Aww. You got so close and then made a fool of yourself again. I’ll help you:

1. I believe the Xian cult is based on belief of lots of gossamer-winged, tiny creatures with magic wands

2. I used ‘sky fairy’ as it’s understood by most people, to mean any form of sky-dwelling magical being that multiple religions over the millennia have believed in

You’ve now got a 50 / 50 chance of getting the right answer.

I’m betting against you. ;)

167. Chaise Guevara

@ 166 BlueRock

Well, as I’m saying it’s 2, for me to have made a fool out of myself it would have to be 1, wouldn’t it?

Nice attempt at sneaking “as understood by most people” in there, by the way. Nope, it’s you, other angry trolls, and an entry on Urban Dictionary probably put there by one of those said angry trolls.

Y’know, if you’d just bothered to define your terms several posts ago we wouldn’t have had to bother with all this nonsense. But why act like an adult when insulting people on the internet lets you pretend you’re a big man?

168. Leon Wolfson

No, Blue Rock, it was an entirely fair assessment of your views. I note that that’s the ONLY one of the things I stated as your views you chose to disagree with.

Never mind that I am against public funding of faith schools, I am religious so you treat me as the enemy. The intolerance is purely one way, from you – never mind that our actual positions are probably not far apart on what the law should be, you’re the one who has to put the hatred and bigotry into your posts.

Then you’re closed minded and bigoted enough to use a quote from a purely Christian book (and I am not Christian) to attack religion in general. No, that’s entirely “sane”. Well, guess what? Here’s some quotes from an atheist which using your “logic” you agree with;

“Death solves all problems – no man, no problem.”
“Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs.”
“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

Don’t like em? Well, quit using your “logic”.

And referring to mainstream religion as a cult is extremely unhelpful to the work of the largely atheist groups who work against true cults. Not that you care about undermining their work, I’m sure, but that’s important for the record.

167. Chaise Guevara

I win my bet! ;)

170. Chaise Guevara

@ 169

You believe that the “Xian” cult is based on a belief of lots of gossamer-winged, tiny creatures with magic wands? Well, suit yourself.

170. Chaise Guevara

Intellectually dishonest or genuinely stupid? Same effect!

@ 166:

“. I used ‘sky fairy’ as it’s understood by most people, to mean any form of sky-dwelling magical being that multiple religions over the millennia have believed in”

“As it’s understood by most people”, the term “sky fairy” is a straw man used as a sneery put-down for religious people. Also, God isn’t “magical” or “sky-dwelling”.

173. Chaise Guevara

@ Bluerock

“Intellectually dishonest or genuinely stupid? Same effect!”

Well, you said I was wrong when I said it was answer 2, so it must be answer 1, right? Or do you not actually read what’s on your screen before posting your pathetic little attacks?

172. XXX

> Also, God isn’t “magical” or “sky-dwelling”.

No, your god is a figment of your delusional imagination – just like fairies at the bottom of the garden are for other nutters. Is it sinking in yet?

“Must resist feeding trolls. Must resist feeding trolls.”

173. Chaise Guevara

So, you now claim to understand after all evidence to the contrary? Then you’re intellectually dishonest. That didn’t work out how you hoped!

I hereby award you this thread’s Emptiest Vessel award. ;)

176. Chaise Guevara

@ 175

I will treasure it always.

I made it clear that I understand your usage of “sky fairy” quite a few posts ago. We’ve even discussed it, and I gave you some helpful pointers on difficult concepts like “defining your terms”. I assume you’re pretending the last few posts never happened because, in your noble quest to declare everyone except you stupid, reality is an irritating nonsense to be ignored when it gets in the way.

176. Chaise Guevara

You need to realise that your hysterical anger makes you incoherent much of the time. Added to your intellectual dishonesty, it’s pretty much impossible to know what your point is.

It’s obvious that you’re desperate to appear clever, but you have none of the tools to achieve it. Unlucky. The world needs ditch diggers. :D

@ 174:

“Must resist feeding trolls. Must resist feeding trolls.”

Yes, you’re right, I must. Tell me if you have anything interesting to say.

We’re wandering (sprinting?) off-topic here from abortion to religion. Given that it seems many on the anti-abortion side claim it’s not a religiously held view or that it does not require such to be held then I’m led to conclude they’re operating from the basic premise that you shouldn’t kill people.

As such I’m surprised no-one has asked “How do you define ‘person’?”. If this is to be the objective debate I hope it can be then this is the question as stake – at what point does a human (defined genetically) become a person (defined socially) if we remove the definition of having been born?

To start the ball rolling perhaps I can suggest when EEG patterns synchronise? It’s a measurable, definable event that allows for early and late development more so than a defined term period.

180. Just Visiting

Chaise

thanks for your time & patience with Bluerock – I had been finding LC desending into poorer levels of debate recently; so it was heartening to see you and XXX batting for logic and reason in debates with religious angles.

I wonder if LC will get past this overly tribal phase.

It’s shame – BlueRock obviously has grey matter, but is using it in unwarranted personal attacks: generating intentionally more heat than light.

(Reminds me of when I was routinely accused of being a christian fundamental or right wing taliban and the rest: simply for things like pointing out the lack of evidence when LC’ers claimed that Jesus and Mohammed were equally violent.)

181. Just Sockpuppeting

BlueRock

thanks for your time & patience with Chaise Guevara – I had been finding LC desending into poorer levels of debate recently; so it was heartening to see you and many others batting for logic and reason in debates with religious angles.

I wonder if LC will get past this overly tribal phase.

It’s shame – Chaise Guevara has no intellectual honesty, very little intellect but lots of histrionics and unwarranted personal attacks: generating intentionally more heat than light.

(Reminds me of when I was routinely accused of being a christian fundamental or right wing taliban and the rest: simply for things like pointing out the lack of evidence when LC’ers claimed that Jesus and Mohammed were equally violent.)

:)

182. Just Visiting

Just Sockpuppeting

So…. you’ve taken and edited my post, dropped in a bash against Chaise in place of my comments about BlueRock…. only one person would be pleased by that…only one person seems addicted to attacking Chaise without any logic….

Hi BlueRock – you bored with posting as yourself now?

It is very sad that Nadine Dorries feels she would have no self identity or anchor in life without her faith. It is a kind of essential crutch for her. I also suspect that she needed therapy but perhaps has not had any (or it was not effective) after her earlier unpleasant experiences as a nurse with two particular abortions – the ones that shocked and distressed her a lot. I wonder if her anti-abortion campaign stems more from those experiences and their effect on her emotionally than anything else really. It is not as if she is as passionate about saving any other innocent young lives, as far as I can make out. An MP should be capable of a much more balanced and objective approach. Unless her constituency has an unusually high population of anti-abortion supporters living in it, i.e. a majority, she should surely be looking after the interests of all those she represents, not just one sub-group.

184. Leon Wolfson

@174 – Starving yourself isn’t a good answer to your problems.

185. Just Sockpuppeting

182. Just Visiting

So…. you’ve dropped in a bash against BlueRock…. only one person would be pleased by that…only one person seems addicted to attacking BlueRock without any logic….

Hi Chaise Guevara – you bored with posting as yourself now?

:)

179. FlipC

> We’re wandering (sprinting?) off-topic here…

I believe it’s obligatory when we get to the dreg-ends of a debate (or ‘debate’ when it’s Chaise Guevara and his sockpuppet tag team).

> Given that it seems many on the anti-abortion side claim it’s not a religiously held view…

And many are as dishonest and sneaky as Nadine Dorries. They know that “it says so in my holy book” won’t win them any arguments in a secular society with a majority of non-believers, so they weasel around and yap about morality.

> As such I’m surprised no-one has asked “How do you define ‘person’?”.

Medical science has determined that the collection of cells at 24 weeks is not viable. It is not a person. What else is there to discuss with them?

Don’t like the science? Refute it.

Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one.

Everything else is a bunch of busy bodies, driven by their warped Bronze Age-infected morality, trying to dictate what other people do with their bodies.

Simples.

183. AForeman

Nadine Dorries is the worst kind of religiot. She can twist and distort any part of her holy book to fit her agenda.

I’m pretty sure there’s something about not lying – or bearing ‘false witness’ in ye olde speak – in her ‘commandments’. Clearly Nadine doesn’t think that applies to her.

Oh, that’s right – she is “just a conduit for God to use”, so whatever she does is a result of divine direction. In a sane society, she would be sectioned.

At least with someone like Fred Phelps he, more or less, follows the fairy tale instructions to the letter. I wonder if he has any bears at his compound in case the kids laugh at a slap head?! :D

188. Leon Wolfson

@186 – Yes, ignore the humanists who defend life from conception on a moral basis. Can’t have reality interfere with your neurochemical buzz.

And no, medical science has “determined” nothing of the sort. The law has determined that. Your conflation of physical laws with legal laws is cute though, in a “oh look, someone’s being silly” way.

Also, to your sockpuppet – everything I post is true.

Leon Wolfson@188

Yes, ignore the humanists who defend life from conception on a moral basis

Well yes we’ve already dealt with that. Read Dorries’ own words about it being a subjective circular argument.

And no, medical science has “determined” nothing of the sort.

The 24 week mark represents the current 50% survival chance; that’s got nothing to do with the law and everything to do with science.

BlueRock@186

So there we have another definition – you cannot abort a human that is viable i.e. capable of surviving outside the womb. However how can that be tested? What physiological stages determine that? Is that not also dependent on the medical capabilities of the country in question? What if we develop full artificial wombs would that not make viability exist from conception?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  2. Tom

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  3. Chris

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/e7De7oI via @libcon

  4. Feminist News

    Revealed: #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/l3Nkm7o

  5. Drew Baxter

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/e7De7oI via @libcon

  6. James

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/e7De7oI via @libcon

  7. sunny hundal

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  8. Gia Milinovich

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  9. Rory Hegarty

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  10. Me. Myself. And Pie.

    Hateful cow RT @seismicshed: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://ow.ly/6ir2r via @libcon

  11. david shelton

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/V7XSagG via @libcon

  12. Richard Murphy

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  13. Charles W

    And trust me, I have not removed any context there. See: http://t.co/wOeaSgj

  14. Matt

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  15. Owen Millard

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  16. Chris Paul

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  17. James Mark Hetterley

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  18. kenneth rumph

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  19. kenneth rumph

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  20. Jules Clarke

    “@libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/zBfuNkB” #Dorries Nadine is just "a conduit for god" FFS!!!!!

  21. Jules Clarke

    “@libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/zBfuNkB” #Dorries Nadine is just "a conduit for god" FFS!!!!!

  22. Not Verified ?

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  23. Not Verified ?

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  24. Lucy Fur

    “@libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/zBfuNkB” #Dorries Nadine is just "a conduit for god" FFS!!!!!

  25. Lucy Fur

    “@libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/zBfuNkB” #Dorries Nadine is just "a conduit for god" FFS!!!!!

  26. Fiona Thomas

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  27. Fiona Thomas

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  28. Rocki Stone

    RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/RXPCLos

  29. Rocki Stone

    RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/RXPCLos

  30. Helen

    Revealed: #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/l3Nkm7o

  31. Helen

    Revealed: #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/l3Nkm7o

  32. Jack Seale

    Nadine Dorries: "I am just a conduit for God to use" http://t.co/fQVCMD0

  33. Jack Seale

    Nadine Dorries: "I am just a conduit for God to use" http://t.co/fQVCMD0

  34. dave shepherdson

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  35. dave shepherdson

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  36. Bob Irving

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  37. tracy e

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/7wZMbBb via @libcon

  38. TheDivineGoat

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  39. Fran Kime

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  40. Jonathan Davis

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  41. Jess

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  42. Iain Lambert

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  43. David Ellwood

    We can but hope that #Dorries own constituents read this and vote her out of parliament at the next general election http://t.co/sImnEap

  44. Joanna Franks

    Nadine Dorries: "I am just a conduit for God to use" http://t.co/fQVCMD0

  45. Lea

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  46. Claire Phipps

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  47. mark shawcross

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  48. Jared Earle

    Thanks to @bloggerheads for that one. Via @sunny_hundal in this post. http://t.co/1IoDxR6

  49. Helen Thomas

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  50. Sean Collindridge

    "@giagia: "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/sD2Bc6C"

  51. VeeBee

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  52. Thom Brooks

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/dKJ2pkW

  53. linnet1968

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  54. Welshracer

    http://t.co/TVwwhKC #Dorries in her own words on abortion

  55. Rob Stradling

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/e7De7oI via @libcon

  56. Simon Howard

    Wow -> RT @giagia "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." Nadine Dorries MP. http://t.co/FSgcnUN

  57. TheCreativeCrip

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  58. che1970

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  59. Christine Burns

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  60. Tom Williamson

    Christian fundamentalist MP Nadine #Dorries 'just a conduit for God' http://t.co/obVtpDo

  61. Beth Jackson

    I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be ( Dorries)http://t.co/eIXvQKY so this is not about religion?

  62. pete

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  63. Michael Curry

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  64. Olive

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  65. Drew York

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  66. Lucy James

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  67. Owen Blacker

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  68. richut

    Christian fundamentalist MP Nadine #Dorries 'just a conduit for God' http://t.co/obVtpDo

  69. lesa

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  70. TheCreativeCrip

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  71. TheCreativeCrip

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  72. James Smith

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  73. James Smith

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  74. Tim Ireland

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/fkMSfCM

  75. Tim Ireland

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/fkMSfCM

  76. Paul Wood

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  77. Paul Wood

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  78. top_tw_science

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  79. top_tw_science

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  80. Jane Emson

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  81. Jane Emson

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  82. HullRePublic

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/znXiBO2 via @libcon

  83. HullRePublic

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/znXiBO2 via @libcon

  84. Jo

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  85. Jo

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  86. Jo

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  87. Lescromps

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  88. Lescromps

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  89. Lescromps

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  90. Mike Yule

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  91. Mike Yule

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  92. Mike Yule

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  93. Hywel N. Arnold

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  94. Hywel N. Arnold

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  95. Hywel N. Arnold

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  96. Sam Chong

    RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/slWnhMz

  97. Sam Chong

    RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/slWnhMz

  98. Sam Chong

    RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/slWnhMz

  99. Snoid

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  100. Snoid

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  101. Rocki Stone

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/fkMSfCM

  102. Rocki Stone

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/fkMSfCM

  103. Tom Williamson

    Not sure if 'conduit for God' is the best way to describe #Dorries. 'Sewer pipe' maybe? http://t.co/obVtpDo

  104. Tom Williamson

    Not sure if 'conduit for God' is the best way to describe #Dorries. 'Sewer pipe' maybe? http://t.co/obVtpDo

  105. Sofia

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  106. Sofia

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  107. Sue Pritchard

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/fkMSfCM

  108. Sue Pritchard

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/fkMSfCM

  109. Chris Marshall

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/fkMSfCM

  110. Maggie Henebury

    Revealed: #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/l3Nkm7o

  111. Jean Pierre

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  112. Mike Ward

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  113. Rory Hegarty

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  114. Clay Harris

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  115. James Asser

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  116. Lanie Ingram

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  117. Jane Emson

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  118. Calm Confusion

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/ZV1yZGb via @libcon

  119. Murray Christison

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/fkMSfCM

  120. Lindsay Dickinson

    Will she still insist shes not a religious nut or anti-choice? RT @libcon: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/6RF3Ga2

  121. Elisabeth Telcs

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  122. patrick

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  123. Paul McGlynn

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/JmHyATa via @libcon

  124. David Cullen

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/fkMSfCM

  125. Catherine Brunton

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  126. Kevin Arscott

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  127. emmie baker larner

    The real #NadineDorries & her views on abortion. http://t.co/uwpHhIm

  128. Catherine Brunton

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  129. Sigridur Grannell

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  130. Tim Maughan

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  131. richut

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  132. Will Porter

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  133. emmie baker larner

    So #Dorries is guided by god? Was it him that told her to commit adultery, I wonder? Hmmm. http://t.co/uwpHhIm

  134. Kate!

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  135. Daniel Zelter

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  136. Chris Coltrane

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  137. Chris Coltrane

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  138. Kylie N

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  139. Kylie N

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  140. mommadona

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  141. mommadona

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  142. Lloyd Raworth

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  143. Lloyd Raworth

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  144. Lucy Brown

    Revealed: #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/l3Nkm7o

  145. DanielPoxton

    #Dorries: "I am just a conduit for God to use". I suspect a supreme being would be a bit more picky about his tools. http://j.mp/p5rbRU

  146. CAROLE JONES

    Scary shit – "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/G6kY2l9

  147. ray turner

    Revealed: #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/l3Nkm7o

  148. PixelAddiction

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  149. Mick Parker

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  150. Lauren Smith

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  151. Kim Blake

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  152. fartycat

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  153. Nicolas Chinardet

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/3HGhYcJ

  154. Andy Pickwell

    "@libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/Fygt5D7&quot; << I hate my MP.

  155. MODERN1ST

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  156. Ronan Klyne

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  157. Top Tech Tweets

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  158. Megan Price

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/fkMSfCM

  159. Elizabeth Bagwell

    Revealed: #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/l3Nkm7o

  160. Duncan

    RT @FeministNewsUK: Revealed: #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/CkEngIR

  161. Ban T-shirts

    RT @FeministNewsUK: Revealed: #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/fWVa9BH

  162. Katie

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  163. The Grim Reaper

    Nadine Dorries and what she REALLY thinks of abortion http://t.co/vvvfb00 via @libcon

  164. David Cummings

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/3HGhYcJ

  165. James Mackenzie

    On @libcon: Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/Dewwbys « another Michele Bachmann?

  166. Eoin McLove

    On @libcon: Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/Dewwbys « another Michele Bachmann?

  167. Ron Lewis

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  168. Ron Lewis

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  169. Lincolnshire Lady

    "@libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/Fygt5D7&quot; << I hate my MP.

  170. Lincolnshire Lady

    "@libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/Fygt5D7&quot; << I hate my MP.

  171. Jonathan Kent

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/qZbymZD « God's sense of humour?

  172. Roisin Joyce

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/bfZRnQL via @libcon

  173. Roisin Joyce

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/bfZRnQL via @libcon

  174. A Man Called Wood

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  175. Steven Baxter

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  176. Therese

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  177. Adam Baker

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  178. Richard

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  179. Brenda Hill

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  180. Tim

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  181. Christopher Love

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  182. Anna Ghislaine

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  183. James Gallagher

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  184. Lorna Kelly

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  185. Stephen Gallagher

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  186. Siren of Brixton

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  187. Siren of Brixton

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  188. Siren of Brixton

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  189. Jon Thomson

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  190. Jon Thomson

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  191. Cat B

    Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion: http://t.co/7KSFLYl / via @emargee

  192. Cat B

    Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion: http://t.co/7KSFLYl / via @emargee

  193. Tim Jones

    RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/PLR2qM7

  194. Tim Jones

    RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/PLR2qM7

  195. Bob Johns

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  196. Bob Johns

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  197. billshankly

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  198. billshankly

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  199. Josh White

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  200. Josh White

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  201. Matt Lloyd

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  202. Matt Lloyd

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  203. Warwick Burns

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  204. Warwick Burns

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  205. Lee Hyde

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  206. Ewan Hoyle

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  207. Tony Hatfield

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  208. Rezina

    Scary! RT @Claire_Phipps: Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/bgttUd2

  209. Michael Merrick

    http://t.co/b6g5C65 <~Liberal Conspiracy on Dorries. Why no outrage about Emily's List? #massivehypocrites

  210. w.m o'mara

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  211. Julian Swainson

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  212. Phil Hartup

    Great. My local MP is crazy http://t.co/yHJlCWE

  213. Purple Habit

    RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/XS3w1gv

  214. Simon Blanchard

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  215. Edward Allison

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  216. Richard Harrowsmith

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  217. Olly Treen

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  218. Katie

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  219. sarah g

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  220. Catherine Bailey

    Breathtaking @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/dwgf7g0

  221. Luke Shore

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  222. Dan Rouncivell

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  223. Laura Blyth

    "@Claire_Phipps: Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/wMBxSk4&quot; I could scream

  224. Luke Shore

    Oh god… ;) Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/EznWV8b

  225. louise pawley

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  226. Colin Farquhar

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  227. Nat Guest

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  228. Avid Reader

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/fkMSfCM

  229. James Mark Hetterley

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  230. Scott English

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  231. Ian Loveland

    Nadine Dorries: "I am just a conduit for God to use". http://t.co/RKMcgtZ Blimey, how did she get away with that? Unforgivable.

  232. Hortense Moongoblin

    Dorries: 'I am just a conduit for God to use' eewwww! | Liberal Conspiracy: http://t.co/yyh6tFr

  233. Aaron Stebbings

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  234. Beth Dempsey

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  235. PSJ Esq.

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  236. Karl Tomlinson

    God wants Nadine Dorries to be an MP. Thanks for that, God. http://t.co/P0GauWr

  237. Karla Evans

    Jesus Christ RT @Glinner: RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/W6R3rRc

  238. Nick Harkaway

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  239. Iain Wallace

    @georgetheemu http://t.co/IG6DVHl

  240. Dorothy Lobel King

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  241. Val Stevenson

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  242. Maverick Mac

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  243. Jo

    Interesting – should religion and politics co-exist to this extent in modern Britain? http://ow.ly/6iw1w (post via Liberal Conspiracy)

  244. Clemency Evans

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  245. Donald Goldthorp

    RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/FA3m0LU

  246. Stephen Braund

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  247. Mike Bennett

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  248. Hannah Mackay

    Nadine Dorries and abortion – http://t.co/cjNhhAU via @libcon

  249. Jason Mcintyre

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  250. Jenny Blacker

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  251. anna

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  252. Christina Patterson

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  253. Karen Bartlett

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  254. Martin

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  255. David Poole

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  256. Dave Clements

    RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/6Icnto4 <- I think the last para is somewhat misjudged.

  257. bluecowmoo

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  258. Bindya Solanki

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Zxy0toW via @libcon

  259. Andrew Tindall

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  260. Claire E

    Jesus Christ RT @Glinner: RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/W6R3rRc

  261. Lawrie Malen

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  262. Bod

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  263. Allie

    Scary! RT @Claire_Phipps: Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/bgttUd2

  264. Legal Aware

    Scary! RT @Claire_Phipps: Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/bgttUd2

  265. Joseph Richards

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  266. Ben Denison

    Scary! RT @Claire_Phipps: Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/bgttUd2

  267. Thomas Fitch

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  268. Fiona Watson

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  269. Matt Bradley

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  270. Matt Bradley

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  271. Kelly Kaye

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  272. Kelly Kaye

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  273. Birmingham Feminists

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  274. Zoe W.

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  275. Rosie Wilkinson

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  276. elliot herman

    RT @Claire_Phipps: Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/JESMNXj

  277. Jon Stone

    Crazy Alpha-course cultist Tory MP @nadine_dorries on why she hates abortion: "I am a conduit for God to use" http://t.co/dUvw7ll #tories

  278. Colin Waude

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  279. Richard Nurse

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  280. llanelliboy

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries not just a cunt but a liar as well http://t.co/EF4d3r2 via @libcon

  281. Sarah Lake

    Oh, the poetry of N. Dorries "There is nothing amazing or special about me, I am just a conduit for God to use." http://t.co/SSwSzC4

  282. DJ Johnston-Smith

    "I am just a conduit for God to use" Nadine "pro-choice" Dorries http://t.co/ZGuIQEe

  283. lefeufollet

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  284. Richard

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  285. SSchleifer

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  286. Hadley Freeman

    Nadine Dorries, on chipping away at abortion rights and how religion influences her politics http://t.co/Ezg00wv

  287. Dar

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  288. Andrew Burnie

    Nadine Dorries, on chipping away at abortion rights and how religion influences her politics http://t.co/Ezg00wv

  289. Beckie Stewart

    Nadine Dorries, on chipping away at abortion rights and how religion influences her politics http://t.co/Ezg00wv

  290. Adrian Trett

    Jesus Christ RT @Glinner: RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/W6R3rRc

  291. Jennie Ricketts

    Nadine Dorries, on chipping away at abortion rights and how religion influences her politics http://t.co/Ezg00wv

  292. JRS

    Nadine Dorries, on chipping away at abortion rights and how religion influences her politics http://t.co/Ezg00wv

  293. Kathrine Bancroft

    Nadine Dorries, on chipping away at abortion rights and how religion influences her politics http://t.co/Ezg00wv

  294. James Pierson

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  295. Poddy Peerman

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  296. Max Dunbar

    Twitter has been the Nadine Dorries Show recently, but this post on her long game strategy is recommended http://t.co/7iDxRMS /via @Juvelad

  297. sam

    Nadine Dorries, on chipping away at abortion rights and how religion influences her politics http://t.co/Ezg00wv

  298. MsGenealogist

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  299. Daisy Payling

    http://t.co/wEWH1OD Dorries took the Alpha Course. Why am I not surprised? #brainwashing

  300. Jack Segal

    Nadine Dorries, on chipping away at abortion rights and how religion influences her politics http://t.co/Ezg00wv

  301. Jessica Ottowell

    Nadine Dorries MP's views on restricting abortion exposed in a revealing interview from '07 http://t.co/BkRw82n

  302. Ellie Mae O'Hagan

    Nadine Dorries: I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/Zi3npHW

  303. Ellie Mae O'Hagan

    Nadine Dorries: I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/Zi3npHW

  304. Ellie Mae O'Hagan

    Nadine Dorries: I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/Zi3npHW

  305. Ma

    RT @MissEllieMae: Nadine Dorries: i'm not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/7MHQQrE > Oh, his fault?

  306. Ma

    RT @MissEllieMae: Nadine Dorries: i'm not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/7MHQQrE > Oh, his fault?

  307. Ma

    RT @MissEllieMae: Nadine Dorries: i'm not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/7MHQQrE > Oh, his fault?

  308. Cory Hazlehurst

    Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." In which case, God really does pick 'em http://t.co/iWNkWNu

  309. Cory Hazlehurst

    Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." In which case, God really does pick 'em http://t.co/iWNkWNu

  310. Cory Hazlehurst

    Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." In which case, God really does pick 'em http://t.co/iWNkWNu

  311. Ceehaitch

    Nadine Dorries: I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/Zi3npHW

  312. Ceehaitch

    Nadine Dorries: I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/Zi3npHW

  313. Ceehaitch

    Nadine Dorries: I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/Zi3npHW

  314. Cochis

    Useless MP making her name-Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/zAvmd5k via @libcon

  315. Cochis

    Useless MP making her name-Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/zAvmd5k via @libcon

  316. Cochis

    Useless MP making her name-Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/zAvmd5k via @libcon

  317. 70ny 8l4!r

    Twitter has been the Nadine Dorries Show recently, but this post on her long game strategy is recommended http://t.co/7iDxRMS /via @Juvelad

  318. 70ny 8l4!r

    Twitter has been the Nadine Dorries Show recently, but this post on her long game strategy is recommended http://t.co/7iDxRMS /via @Juvelad

  319. 70ny 8l4!r

    Twitter has been the Nadine Dorries Show recently, but this post on her long game strategy is recommended http://t.co/7iDxRMS /via @Juvelad

  320. Peter Marshall

    Nadine Dorries and abortion – http://t.co/cjNhhAU via @libcon

  321. Peter Marshall

    Nadine Dorries and abortion – http://t.co/cjNhhAU via @libcon

  322. Peter Marshall

    Nadine Dorries and abortion – http://t.co/cjNhhAU via @libcon

  323. Flake

    Nadine Dorries: I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/Zi3npHW

  324. Andy S

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  325. tucks

    RT @MissEllieMae Nadine Dorries: I'm not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/aqd9uOn < Keep it up Nads!

  326. tucks

    RT @MissEllieMae Nadine Dorries: I'm not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/aqd9uOn < Keep it up Nads!

  327. tucks

    RT @MissEllieMae Nadine Dorries: I'm not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/aqd9uOn < Keep it up Nads!

  328. tucks

    RT @MissEllieMae Nadine Dorries: I'm not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/aqd9uOn < Keep it up Nads!

  329. tucks

    RT @MissEllieMae Nadine Dorries: I'm not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/aqd9uOn < Keep it up Nads!

  330. Christopher McKeon

    Maybe God wants Dorries to be an MP because we all need a demon to fight. http://t.co/oyWRXj7 (h/t @Claire_Phipps and @andy_s_64)

  331. Christopher McKeon

    Maybe God wants Dorries to be an MP because we all need a demon to fight. http://t.co/oyWRXj7 (h/t @Claire_Phipps and @andy_s_64)

  332. Christopher McKeon

    Maybe God wants Dorries to be an MP because we all need a demon to fight. http://t.co/oyWRXj7 (h/t @Claire_Phipps and @andy_s_64)

  333. Christopher McKeon

    Maybe God wants Dorries to be an MP because we all need a demon to fight. http://t.co/oyWRXj7 (h/t @Claire_Phipps and @andy_s_64)

  334. Christopher McKeon

    Maybe God wants Dorries to be an MP because we all need a demon to fight. http://t.co/oyWRXj7 (h/t @Claire_Phipps and @andy_s_64)

  335. Atos Kills

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion @LibCon http://t.co/gkmhAfR #fem2 #prochoice

  336. Atos Kills

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion @LibCon http://t.co/gkmhAfR #fem2 #prochoice

  337. Atos Kills

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion @LibCon http://t.co/gkmhAfR #fem2 #prochoice

  338. Atos Kills

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion @LibCon http://t.co/gkmhAfR #fem2 #prochoice

  339. Atos Kills

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion @LibCon http://t.co/gkmhAfR #fem2 #prochoice

  340. Sarah Graham

    Nadine Dorries: I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/Zi3npHW

  341. Sarah Graham

    Nadine Dorries: I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/Zi3npHW

  342. Sarah Graham

    Nadine Dorries: I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/Zi3npHW

  343. Sarah Graham

    Nadine Dorries: I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/Zi3npHW

  344. Sarah Graham

    Nadine Dorries: I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/Zi3npHW

  345. Steve

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  346. Steve

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  347. Steve

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  348. Steve

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  349. Steve

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  350. Andy Emmerson

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/slL0r9k via @libcon

  351. Andy Emmerson

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/slL0r9k via @libcon

  352. Andy Emmerson

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/slL0r9k via @libcon

  353. Andy Emmerson

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/slL0r9k via @libcon

  354. Andy Emmerson

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/slL0r9k via @libcon

  355. Reverend S. Infidel

    Nadine #Dorries and her real views on #abortion | LibCsp | http://t.co/3MfVR4g #womensrights #atheism #secularism #prochoice is #prolife

  356. Reverend S. Infidel

    Nadine #Dorries and her real views on #abortion | LibCsp | http://t.co/3MfVR4g #womensrights #atheism #secularism #prochoice is #prolife

  357. Reverend S. Infidel

    Nadine #Dorries and her real views on #abortion | LibCsp | http://t.co/3MfVR4g #womensrights #atheism #secularism #prochoice is #prolife

  358. Reverend S. Infidel

    Nadine #Dorries and her real views on #abortion | LibCsp | http://t.co/3MfVR4g #womensrights #atheism #secularism #prochoice is #prolife

  359. Reverend S. Infidel

    Nadine #Dorries and her real views on #abortion | LibCsp | http://t.co/3MfVR4g #womensrights #atheism #secularism #prochoice is #prolife

  360. Reverend S. Infidel

    #Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" | LibCsp | http://t.co/3MfVR4g #abortion #atheism

  361. Reverend S. Infidel

    #Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" | LibCsp | http://t.co/3MfVR4g #abortion #atheism

  362. Reverend S. Infidel

    #Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" | LibCsp | http://t.co/3MfVR4g #abortion #atheism

  363. Reverend S. Infidel

    #Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" | LibCsp | http://t.co/3MfVR4g #abortion #atheism

  364. Reverend S. Infidel

    #Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" | LibCsp | http://t.co/3MfVR4g #abortion #atheism

  365. Keiran Macintosh

    RT @MissEllieMae Nadine Dorries: I'm not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/aqd9uOn < Keep it up Nads!

  366. Sarah Brown

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/slL0r9k via @libcon

  367. Jon

    RT @MissEllieMae Nadine Dorries: I'm not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/aqd9uOn < Keep it up Nads!

  368. Jason

    RT @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/N4bBsa0

  369. Emma

    Nadine Dorries: I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/Zi3npHW

  370. Christopher Handley

    Stew Wilson: <a href="http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/09/01/revealed-nadine-dorries-and-her-real-views-on-ab… (cont) http://t.co/aWidOT9

  371. tracy powell

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  372. Clara Boxall

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  373. Tom Gidden

    Nadine Dorries evidently believes in the Divine Right of Lunatic Right-Wing Nutjobs. http://t.co/1hdkjor

  374. Ann McMeekin Carrier

    Nadine Dorries, on chipping away at abortion rights and how religion influences her politics http://t.co/Ezg00wv

  375. Ann McMeekin Carrier

    Nadine Dorries, on chipping away at abortion rights and how religion influences her politics http://t.co/Ezg00wv

  376. Robert Proni

    This women has serious issues. Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/MLxFE4J via @libcon

  377. David Bingham

    RT @auntysarah: RT @AAEmmerson: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/IKBG1Dt via @libcon

  378. Rachel Ali

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  379. ailsamcwhinnie

    Nadine Dorries, on chipping away at abortion rights and how religion influences her politics http://t.co/Ezg00wv

  380. Laura Synthesis

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  381. Kevin Davidson

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  382. TErrybartlett

    "@libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/mEF4QCR"how to trip up on your own tripe

  383. Peter

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  384. Jon Edgley Bond

    Breathtaking @libcon: Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/dwgf7g0

  385. Philip Todd

    Nadine Dorries, on chipping away at abortion rights and how religion influences her politics http://t.co/Ezg00wv

  386. JLo

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  387. Tim Stanley

    @sunny_hundal scoops that Dorries is a prolife Christian. Duh. & the Pope's a Catholic. Both are right on abortion. http://t.co/oZLe51z

  388. “I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be” Nadine Dorries |

    [...] a special hat tip towards @Sunny_Hundal and his blog Liberal Conspiracy, i’ve been pointed to the following quote made by Dorries in an interview with The Salvation [...]

  389. Theunis Bates

    Nadine Dorries: "I am just a conduit for God to use" http://t.co/fQVCMD0

  390. 4tis

    Christian fundamentalist MP Nadine #Dorries 'just a conduit for God' http://t.co/obVtpDo

  391. Chris Spyrou

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  392. Darren Hanson

    Christian fundamentalist MP Nadine #Dorries 'just a conduit for God' http://t.co/obVtpDo

  393. Renee Ahlstedt

    f**k u Dorries ! Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/w6Nh0NT via @libcon

  394. raincoat optimism

    Lovely stuff – Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/1lxg6XK via @libcon

  395. Rocki Stone

    Lovely stuff – Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/1lxg6XK via @libcon

  396. Richard

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  397. Roy Grubb

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/XpmC63X

  398. Diane Lawrence

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/MwcbkbG via @libcon

  399. tucks

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion | @libcon http://t.co/aqd9uOn ht @carlrIncoat #prochoice

  400. tucks

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion | @libcon http://t.co/aqd9uOn ht @carlrIncoat #prochoice

  401. Dave Davis

    Revealed: Nadine #Dorries and her real views on abortion | @libcon http://t.co/aqd9uOn ht @carlrIncoat #prochoice

  402. Miriam Said

    RT @MissEllieMae Nadine Dorries: I'm not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be. http://t.co/aqd9uOn < Keep it up Nads!

  403. Nick Mellish

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  404. Paul Rooke

    Lead Story: (Not Always My Views) Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on aborti… http://t.co/xjb0eCh, see more http://t.co/Cj5Vy4G

  405. LGBT Cymru Helpline

    Lead Story: (Not Always My Views) Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on aborti… http://t.co/xjb0eCh, see more http://t.co/Cj5Vy4G

  406. Gov Manslaughter

    Lead Story: (Not Always My Views) Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on aborti… http://t.co/xjb0eCh, see more http://t.co/Cj5Vy4G

  407. Richard

    Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be" http://t.co/RAPwz7J

  408. Martin Campbell

    The truth behind #Dorries motivation on #abortion, in case you were in doubt. http://t.co/jyxL9gf

  409. Funny Bunny

    @Art_Li I'm certain the aim of the amendment is to reverse the law allowing abortions. Read this? http://t.co/tf1Be12

  410. Dan Hynes

    Why is Nadine Dorries an MP? Because God told her he wanted her to be one, so she could be his "conduit". Fuck's sake. http://t.co/CZ8vkdA

  411. Andy Hicks

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  412. Andy Hicks

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  413. Alexis Forss

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  414. Alexis Forss

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  415. Jason Mcintyre

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  416. Jason Mcintyre

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  417. jamie mckay

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  418. jamie mckay

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  419. Lee Hyde

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  420. Lee Hyde

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  421. Becs

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  422. Becs

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  423. Neil Atkinson

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  424. Neil Atkinson

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  425. ANN LANGLEY

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  426. ANN LANGLEY

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  427. GodwinsLaw1

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  428. DPWF

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  429. Dave M

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  430. Keltis

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  431. sasastro

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  432. Steven Gabb

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  433. DPWF

    An terrifying exposure of some of #Dorries links to pro-life religious extremists and their tactics. http://t.co/HekWSx5 #abortion

  434. Louise Baldock

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  435. Matt Leys

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  436. Martin Rathfelder

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  437. sabele26

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  438. pete brookes

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  439. David Bailey

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  440. cheesley

    Nadine Dorries mp & god http://t.co/2bvzlGc via @sunny_hundal < God & government have no place together! Keep god out of politics!

  441. Ian Loveland

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  442. pete brookes

    http://t.co/Vo8EABE /via @sunny_hundal
    Nadine Dorries. Self Proclaimed mission from God.
    Crikey. I must have been so wrong about her… #fb

  443. Miss E

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  444. Tim Arrowsmith

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  445. TheCreativeCrip

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  446. Miss Lucy

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  447. Ben Woolgar

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  448. festinagirl

    The Dorries claim to be 'pro choice' categorically exploded http://t.co/Yu3Lfoh

  449. shelleyoh

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  450. Andrew Rhodes

    The real agenda of the "pro-choice" Nadine #Dorries http://t.co/JX7zab5 via Liberal Conspiracy

  451. Lesley Bruce

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  452. Andy S

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  453. Rachael

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  454. Paul Abbott

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  455. Scott Euden

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  456. Captain Swing

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  457. Jon (Bambi) Page

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/3HGhYcJ

  458. Hugo Currie

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  459. Tom Bruce

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  460. Ian Tilly

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/AdetpE2

  461. Politics live: readers’ edition – Thursday 1 September 2011 | Politics News and Discussion

    [...] 2.57pm: dfic1999 posts a link below the line to this blogpost on the Liberal Conspiracy site. [...]

  462. Ian Statham

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  463. liversedge

    The Dorries claim to be 'pro choice' categorically exploded http://t.co/Yu3Lfoh

  464. R-A

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  465. Lynda Williams

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  466. EmLG

    Our BIG story of the day – Nadine Dorries: "I am not an MP for any reason other than because God wants me to be." http://t.co/BkRw82n

  467. Lesley Bruce

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/6WzxKY2 via @libcon

  468. Judith Flanders

    When she's voted out, God's had 2nd thoughts? MT @sunny_hundal Nadine Dorries: "I'm an MP because God wants me to be." http://t.co/aDwtJDx

  469. Rebecca Cobb-Kilner

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  470. K Naismith Robertson

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/TxymzmS

  471. Siân de Freyssinet

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/sEr1iiz via @libcon

  472. Sam de Freyssinet

    Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/sEr1iiz via @libcon

  473. Management Pawn

    Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Pb7rXrl

  474. Sam Liu

    Aware this is old news, but I think Dorries is the closest thing we have to a British Tea Party http://t.co/GCzK4i3 #scary #downwithdorries

  475. Look Left – Libya: Allies urge “reconciliation and forgiveness” | Left Foot Forward

    [...] Hundal at Liberal Conspiracy has more on the real reasons behind Dorries’s campaign, exposing her real views on the subject, and her [...]

  476. Max Dunbar

    And so strategically 'the only way forward is to argue for a reduction in the time limit.' (via @libcon) http://t.co/iAlvgOE

  477. s.a.kelly

    Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/iXSbDBZ via @libcon

  478. James White

    @bellamackie @magiczebras In case you missed it….RT @libcon Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/opD3epE

  479. Nicola Conner

    @bellamackie @magiczebras In case you missed it….RT @libcon Revealed: Nadine Dorries and her real views on abortion http://t.co/opD3epE

  480. James Mark Hetterley

    @rorylawless Here :)) http://t.co/4PNhhY7

  481. Holly Elliott

    Nadine Dorries, on chipping away at abortion rights and how religion influences her politics http://t.co/Ezg00wv

  482. Christian Wilcox

    Nadine Dorries has a 'ban abortions' agenda: http://t.co/3sTP6XZ . So she needs people to end up in 'faith-based' stuff. ( @CroydonLabour )

  483. Christian Wilcox

    cont: http://t.co/3sTP6XZ . So it's a dirty trick. Leaving vulnerable women more exposed to faith-based groups. ( @CroydonLabour )

  484. t hill

    "I am not [a politician] for any reason other than because God wants me to be." No, not Bachmann. Dorries. http://t.co/4Q2pIR1

  485. Max Dunbar

    Pro-choice, Nadine? That's not what you told the Salvation Army http://t.co/E34hVvV /via @samsoir

  486. Christian J Wilcox

    Nadine Dorries has a 'ban abortions' agenda: http://t.co/3sTP6XZ . So she needs people to end up in 'faith-based' stuff. ( @CroydonLabour )

  487. Christian J Wilcox

    cont: http://t.co/3sTP6XZ . So it's a dirty trick. Leaving vulnerable women more exposed to faith-based groups. ( @CroydonLabour )

  488. Christian Wilcox

    @NadineDorriesMP As long as it locks out the dangerous pro-lifers…: http://t.co/8XmbDZjN. Religious extremists are bad news.

  489. Noodlehands

    @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders @shanemuk Fundamentalist Christian in cherry picking evidence shock. How's Dorries btw? http://t.co/QLbZZ7Ws

  490. Noodlehands

    @moronwatch @drpetersaunders lol! Just a little something to add http://t.co/QLbZZ7Ws and http://t.co/l2xExkiw Fee-fi-fo-fundie.

  491. Noodlehands

    @welsh_gas_doc It goes further. Apols if old http://t.co/QLbZZ7Ws and http://t.co/l2xExkiw Apols for any depression those links cause

  492. Jim Jepps

    @Barkingside21 this piece rounds up how she has explicitly posed as pro-choice as a tactic to restrict abortion http://t.co/FSEwqA5B





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.