Slightly extreme proposal perhaps?

Britain’s biggest maternity union has joined forces with abortion providers and radical feminists in an ‘extreme’ campaign to abolish the legal limits on abortion.
The Royal College of Midwives, which represents nearly 30,000 midwives and health workers, is calling for women to be allowed to terminate an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy – and face no criminal sanctions.
Abolishing abortion law would do away with the current time limit of 24 weeks of pregnancy, after which a woman can only have a termination for medical reasons.

Of course, the pass has already been sold. When that limit came down from 28 weeks to 24, that medical exemption was added. So that line between this is a human being with rights and this is not was already blurred. This is just the logical extension.

Slippery slopes do indeed exist…..

43 thoughts on “Slightly extreme proposal perhaps?”

  1. Shouldn’t someone running a midwives union be more pro-life? Doesn’t that mean less work for their members?

    And FFS women SHOULD be criminalised after 24 weeks. We know that children have been born at that stage and survived, so it’s pretty much murder. And I say this as someone who is broadly speaking, not anti-abortion (but would lower the term).

  2. A right pair of hard-faced bitches they look, too. How long before “it’s easier” to let the child go full term, be born and then have its spinal cord snipped? Brave New World is sidling in, bit by bit.

  3. Unless the slope is not slippery. As a foetus generally becomes viable after 24 weeks, then it is most unlikely to be lengthened from that point.

  4. “Shouldn’t someone running a midwives union be more pro-life? Doesn’t that mean less work for their members?”

    I don’t know about the Maldives, but I’ve heard stories from older relatives about how things used to be done here. Midwives have long been at the sharp end of the ‘unofficial’ ways of dealing with the problem. And they’re no doubt fully aware of the legal jeopardy they put themselves in when they find themselves involved, or even aware.

    It’s like anything that people want to do but the law bans. Ban drugs, but people still take them. Ban alcohol, but people still drink. Ban their import, but people still smuggle them. Ban music downloads, but kids will still do it. Ban selling sex, but you’ll still find prostitutes on the street. Ban porn, but people will still find ways around the obstacles you put in their way.

    And when you’re forced to do it in secret, you’ll find yourself having to deal with some unsavoury people, and unable to go to anyone for help or to complain about your treatment. And I’d guess the midwives see it all. All ‘the secrets never to be told’.

    It’s like members of the vice squad campaigning to legalise prostitution. Yes, it would mean less work for them, but that’s probably not the reason they’d do it.

  5. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “And when you’re forced to do it in secret, you’ll find yourself having to deal with some unsavoury people, and unable to go to anyone for help or to complain about your treatment.”

    So you think rape and murder for hire should be legal? If I want to kill my neighbour at the moment I would have to deal with some very unsavory people. No recourse if they rip me off. Much better if it is all legal and above board?

  6. The Inimitable Steve

    NiV – And when you’re forced to do it in secret, you’ll find yourself having to deal with some unsavoury people, and unable to go to anyone for help or to complain about your treatment. And I’d guess the midwives see it all. All ‘the secrets never to be told’.

    Fuck the midwives. I’d strangle these gollum-faced old trouts with a wire coathanger.

    It is also high time we brought back hanging, and I fully support it for abortionists and so-called doctors who give sex change drugs to children. No reason why we can’t abort criminals in the 160th trimester, after all.

    As Christ said, those who hurt the little ones would be better off drowned with a millstone around their necks.

  7. NiV,

    “And when you’re forced to do it in secret, you’ll find yourself having to deal with some unsavoury people, and unable to go to anyone for help or to complain about your treatment. And I’d guess the midwives see it all. All ‘the secrets never to be told’.”

    Well, tough shit. Sorry, but you could have shut your legs, we have very reliable forms of contraception and you’ve had 6 months (which should be below 5) to sort out an abortion. You had plenty of ways to deal with the problem, and for some reason, didn’t opt for those and killed a child.

  8. Slippery slopes do indeed exist…

    Of course they exist but that in itself doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do the thing at the top of the slope. (To say otherwise is the fallacy – it is not a fallacy that slippery slopes exist.)

  9. “So you think rape and murder for hire should be legal?”

    Do you think a 13 year old girl who’s just been raped ought to be abandoned to be murdered by her outraged family?

    As it happens, I don’t agree with extending the period where abortions are allowed. Opinions can legitimately differ. But I’d expect midwives would have a lot more knowledge of the real issues and consequences of abortion law than any of us do, and would have reasons for their stance. I’d hesitate to dismiss their arguments without listening.

    “Fuck the midwives. I’d strangle these gollum-faced old trouts with a wire coathanger.”

    Quite. You’re *so* impressing me with your humanity.

    “It is also high time we brought back hanging, and I fully support it for abortionists and so-called doctors who give sex change drugs to children.”

    That’s how it always starts. People get angry that other people are allowed to disagree with them, and soon start calling for the hangings, gas chambers, and concentration camps. That’s how it happened with all the historical cases – all of them done by ordinary people, exactly like you.

    The scary thing is, this time it’s the people you disagree with who are driving the agenda, and who will have the power to send all the homophobes, transphobes, and right-to-lifers to the gallows. Have you ever thought about what precedent you’re setting? Never give the government powers you wouldn’t want your political opponents to be able to use on you. Or as you could put it: only do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    It says lots of things in the Bible, many of them so far outside the bounds of modern morality as to be psychopathic – including killing children. That’s not much of an authority to be citing.

    “Well, tough shit. Sorry, but you could have shut your legs, we have very reliable forms of contraception and you’ve had 6 months (which should be below 5) to sort out an abortion.”

    Which don’t always work – obviously, or there wouldn’t be a problem.

    The same goes for any ban. You could give up drinking, and then the prohibition laws wouldn’t be a problem for you, would they?

    “You had plenty of ways to deal with the problem, and for some reason, didn’t opt for those and killed a child.”

    OK, you know so much – what *was* the reason?

  10. @ukliberty

    The slippery slope fallacy is curious because it operates on at least two levels: the raw form is that “it’s fallacious to refuse to do the thing at the top of a slipper slope, just because the slope exists”, but that is often fallacious in its own right – in some cases because people deny the slippery slope even exists, but more often because “it’s fallacious we should do the arguably beneficial thing at the top of the slope simply because the slippery slope argument is weak, without first checking just how slippery the slope might turn out to be, and the unpleasantness of the depths to which the slope may descend”.

  11. I suspect that drugs exist to induce spontaneous abortion / childbirth. That would be less messy than sticking tools up there and ripping the foetus’s head off.

  12. “But I’d expect midwives would have a lot more knowledge of the real issues and consequences of abortion law than any of us do, and would have reasons for their stance. I’d hesitate to dismiss their arguments without listening.”

    And maybe they’re just left wing cunty feminists, who believe that women should have 100% rights, men and children 0%.

  13. “And maybe they’re just left wing cunty feminists, who believe that women should have 100% rights, men and children 0%.”

    And maybe you’re a wild-eyed Muslim beardy extremist who thinks that the Godly should have 100% rights, and sinful women and girls 0%?

    How long do you want to play this game?

  14. Steve,

    I’m glad I decided to search for the particular edition as I had forgotten the reference. Well played. I’m glad I could be your straight man for that one.

  15. ukliberty,

    “Of course they exist but that in itself doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do the thing at the top of the slope. (To say otherwise is the fallacy – it is not a fallacy that slippery slopes exist.)”

    There is an incentive thing to them. If people see that work leads to a desired result, they’re more likely to do more of it. They gain momentum, and just keep going.

    So, the smoking ban is now far bigger than just inside offices and pubs. No smoking in cars with kids, either. No vaping in all sorts of places, even though it has none of the same problems as cigarettes. One council has banned it on all grounds or during working hours for staff and the facade of “what you do to others” has been dropped. The reasons are literally that smoking is bad, and this is for your own good.

  16. @NiV
    “The scary thing is, this time it’s the people you disagree with who are driving the agenda, and who will have the power to send all the homophobes, transphobes, and right-to-lifers to the gallows. Have you ever thought about what precedent you’re setting? Never give the government powers you wouldn’t want your political opponents to be able to use on you.”

    Death is not worse than public humiliation – a power our enemies already have. Look at the disgraceful treatment of Sir Tim Hunt, based on a completely fabricated story by Connie St Louis. If they have that power then why should we fear anything more? If we fight, then we have a chance of victory; and no matter how slim, the satisfaction of sending you all to the gallows will be more than enough to make it all worthwhile. Pascal’s Hanging.

  17. Richard Allan: ‘If we fight, then we have a chance of victory; and no matter how slim, the satisfaction of sending you all to the gallows will be more than enough to make it all worthwhile. Pascal’s Hanging.’

    Oh, bravo! Better to take a stand for something, than to acquiesce with stomach-churning moral relativism of the type peddled by NiV.

  18. “Death is not worse than public humiliation …”

    Opinions are divided on that!

    “… a power our enemies already have.”

    So take it off them. Make the case.

    But you can’t make the case effectively while doing exactly the same sort of things yourself.

    “f we fight, then we have a chance of victory; and no matter how slim, the satisfaction of sending you all to the gallows will be more than enough to make it all worthwhile.”

    That’s what *they* say – and said about people like Tim Hunt. Do you want to be like them?

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

  19. NiV,

    “Which don’t always work – obviously, or there wouldn’t be a problem.

    The same goes for any ban. You could give up drinking, and then the prohibition laws wouldn’t be a problem for you, would they?”

    An alcohol-related example: I’ve just emptied a few martinis into my liver, but I’m out of Tanqueray, because I didn’t make sure that I had planned ahead. My BAC is at least double the legal limit. I don’t have the right to get in my car and drive to Tesco to get some more, because at that point, my drinking is no longer about my rights, but also the rights of others.

    And that’s the same with abortion. It’s a complicated, thorny issue, but the 24 week term has been thought about from the same perspective: it’s the point when we consider that a foetus has extended rights, when it could live outside the womb, when abortion isn’t just about the woman’s rights. You miss those weeks, even if it’s for a reason that we might sympathise with, you don’t get to choose, because it’s no longer your choice.

  20. “And that’s the same with abortion. It’s a complicated, thorny issue,”

    That’s right. That’s my point.

    There’s a trade-off to be struck between the harm done to the mother and her family, and the harm done to the child (or potential child, depending on your views). There is no point you can choose that avoids harm entirely. All you can do is hope to minimise it.

    Legislators have picked 24 weeks on the basis of such considerations. Earlier and you do more harm to one, later and you do more harm to the other. Given that it’s such a fraught subject, I suspect it’s the best you’re going to get. However, people are still going to argue. That’s what the midwives are doing, and that’s what you’re all doing. Maybe the midwives know more about the harm done than I do – it is at least a valid consideration in making the trade-off. Maybe the information and opinions will move where we think the point of minimum harm is, and maybe it won’t. I don’t know. That’s up to the legislators.

    Calls to strangle people with coathanger wire for disagreeing with us is not a good place to be. That’s all I’m saying.

  21. Bloke in Costa Rica

    It is not particularly difficult, and certainly not as difficult as I would like*, to obtain an abortion in the UK. The 24-week cutoff appears to be a fairly low bar—almost six months—and there are ‘medical exemptions’ beyond this point. Given that is the case, what is the motive of this pair of harridans? Cui bono? We know cui malo. Unborn children (and yes, given that 24 weeks is now a survivable gestational period, that is the correct term, not the deliberately dehumanising ‘fœtus’ ), obviously. Abortion is, apodictically, not contraception, and should not be viewed as such. Unless you’re the most doctrinaire of religious adherent, you draw a distinction between a life not created and a life created but then terminated. The number of lives not created is not even countable, but the number of aborted ones is.

    So, what’s their game? We would seem to have just about enough abortion as it is, or possibly too much. They’re asking for something for which there would appear to be no need. There is no moral, medical or societal need to further liberalise abortion, and a host of reasons covering all three categories not to. So at this point I’m forced to adopt the SMFS/Ecks standpoint that it’s purely an assertion of power.

    So yeah, hang ’em.

    * if we have to have it, and it appears we do, I’d favour 20 weeks as the cutoff.

  22. I don’t remember my wife telling me about this, perhaps it’s been sneaked through.

    Her opinion is that the NCM is a collection of useless lummocks who run the College because they couldn’t cut it as real midwives.

  23. NiV,

    “Maybe the midwives know more about the harm done than I do – it is at least a valid consideration in making the trade-off. Maybe the information and opinions will move where we think the point of minimum harm is, and maybe it won’t. I don’t know. That’s up to the legislators.”

    The statement they made is quite clear. They support late term abortion because otherwise women will do it on their own. They have a full statement on their website from February that makes no mention at all of the rights of the child:-

    https://www.rcm.org.uk/news-views-and-analysis/news/campaign-launched-to-remove-abortion-from-criminal-law

    Frankly, it reeks of radical feminism.

  24. “The statement they made is quite clear. They support late term abortion because otherwise women will do it on their own.”

    Hmm. Some might. Not all of them.

    “They have a full statement on their website from February that makes no mention at all of the rights of the child”

    If that’s their argument, then it’s arguably not relevant. The options on offer are: a) abortion in conditions protecting the mother’s health, b) abortion in conditions risking the mother’s health. Not aborting isn’t an option on offer.

    Not sure I’d accept that without a lot more evidence. But it’s not a subject I know as much about as a midwife would. Radical feminism is a plausible hypothesis.

  25. The Stigler (also to the rest of you miserable shower, you know who you are)

    ‘makes no mention at all of the rights of the child’

    You think that abortion shouldn’t be allowed after x weeks, fair enough.

    20 weekers can survive so instead of abortion, induction will be applied followed by intensive care until you can take your new baby home. (the mother didn’t want it, I don’t want it, you were too squeamish to kill it, you fucking keep it).

    The costs of all of this should be born [sic] by you and your cronies. (you do get the child benefit though).

    You can have a free market .xor. a nanny state.

  26. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “Do you think a 13 year old girl who’s just been raped ought to be abandoned to be murdered by her outraged family?”

    The real question is do you? Given I am not a supporter of immigration and multiculturalism. But I tell you what NiV, let us both agree that abortion should be legal for 13 year old girls who have been raped and stand a good chance of being murdered by their relatives. As stupid as it is to protect people who rape 13 year old girls. We can ban the rest.

    That would give us an effective abortion rate of zero. Given as there are no significant number of such cases in Britain.

    “Opinions can legitimately differ.”

    Can they? I doubt that.

    “But I’d expect midwives would have a lot more knowledge of the real issues and consequences of abortion law than any of us do, and would have reasons for their stance. I’d hesitate to dismiss their arguments without listening.”

    Feminists take over yet another institution. That does not mean they know jack. Or that they have the best interests of these women at heart. It just means the SJW’s long march through the institutions continues.

    “That’s how it happened with all the historical cases – all of them done by ordinary people, exactly like you.”

    Is that Godwin’s law being violated by proxy? The intolerance here is from your side. No one will be fired for supporting abortion. Opposing it is all but illegal. It is your side that is moving towards camps for people who disagree.

    “Never give the government powers you wouldn’t want your political opponents to be able to use on you. Or as you could put it: only do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

    The abortionists should have thought of that before they started driving blunt metal objects into babies’ brains.

    “Which don’t always work – obviously, or there wouldn’t be a problem.”

    Abortion is almost entirely about convenience. It has little to do with anything else. It does work.

  27. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “Legislators have picked 24 weeks on the basis of such considerations.”

    No they haven’t. They picked this date to pretend to the rubes that we do not have abortion on demand up to and including once the woman has gone into labour. It is all part of a charade to make abortion acceptable to the mass of the voters by pretending that we are not doing what we are doing.

    Nothing else.

  28. “Do we, as the population of this blog, consider that a telling omission?”

    Shouldn’t do. It’s just a logical implication of the premise.

    If the issue is that the mothers are going to do it on their own anyway, then the abortion will happen whether you make it legal or not. Hence, that there will be no abortion isn’t a possibility.

    That doesn’t imply it shouldn’t be illegal, though. But it does mean that your purposes can only be punitive, not preventative. You won’t reduce the number of abortions that happen, but you’ll at least be able to punish the girls who did it, and make it harder and more dangerous for them.

    It depends on whether your priority is harm prevention, or justice.

  29. It seems to me that a subset of people view the right to an abortion as a priority for women, and offer/extend that as a means of attracting support from women.
    As if women have no other concerns, and no means of heading off an abortion.
    Hell if the girl don’t know she could be pregnant the morning after she’s not fully aware.
    If she doesn’t know two months after she’s in denial.

  30. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “If the issue is that the mothers are going to do it on their own anyway, then the abortion will happen whether you make it legal or not. Hence, that there will be no abortion isn’t a possibility.”

    That assumes women are sociopaths who will break the law because they seem to think the law does not apply to them. This is absurd. As we can see with abortion figures, legalisation did increase the number of abortions. Banning them may not reduce the number to zero, but it will reduce the numbers.

    You know, in the same way banning rape reduces the amount of rape. Despite such a punitive approach being taken towards rapists.

  31. Intractable Potsherd

    As I’ve said in different places (I can’t remember if this is one), the value of life can only be set by the person living it. In the case of pregnancy, the woman carrying the potential child should be able to put a value on both lives up to the point of birth. This is axiomatic unless you are going to allow others to set a value on all lives (and it seems unlikely that many commentators here are likely to support that – except those who have decided that the value of life of those who disagree with them are valueless (c.f. “strangling with a coat hanger”), of course!)

    As mentioned recently on another thread, Mrs IP and I are having twins in the next week. We want them very much, and they have been “babies” (as opposed to foetuses) for months. Their value to us is huge. However, this doesn’t mean that I would expect everyone who is pregnant or in a relationship with someone who is to have the same feelings. Mrs IP and I are now having the discussion about, if things go wrong (unlikely but possible), do we save the children or her? We are actively weighing up the relative value of three lives, and it isn’t easy – but it needs to be done. Every woman has the right to do the same – hopefully with the input of the father, but not everyone is in the same position.

    On the topic of pre-term survivals now (in one case) being at 22 weeks 5 days – there is little chance that those babies will live to adulthood. Even 24 week babies have very little chance of survival, and certainly not without a great deal of medical input. They will all be disabled in some way. Again, it is the right of the parents to place a value on that life, and if they want the input, and to bring up a disabled child, that is their choice. However, I most certainly would not insist that the child be kept alive – that is not my right, nor is it the right of anyone else.

    Finally, let’s be pragmatic – let’s say that all these unwanted children are born. Who is going to look after them? Giving up for adoption is more likely than not going to be bad for the child – endless foster-carers etc, with a small possibility of adoption. Living with a mother (and or father) who didn’t want the child and resents or ignores the life changes – again, hardly a good life. The only winners are social workers who get to interfere in more lives – and that is not good for anyone.

  32. “If she doesn’t know two months after she’s in denial.”

    Some are. Some are scared. Some are stupid or ignorant. Some are in danger from their families, and have limited opportunities to sneak out to find a doctor. Without knowing the circumstances of each individual case, I’d not want to judge.

    There are plenty of kids who do stupid things. There are plenty who will break the law, even knowing the consequences. Humans are often irrational. You only have to watch one of those late-night police shows on TV to know what sort of people you’re dealing with. A frightened kid procrastinating until it’s too late and then turning to desperate measures is just the sort of thing I’d expect to happen quite often.

    “That assumes women are sociopaths who will break the law because they seem to think the law does not apply to them.”

    It assumes that they’re desperate, facing a life-destroying disaster, the consequences of which are a lot worse and longer-term than whatever punishment you’ve got in mind for them if they’re caught.

    “As we can see with abortion figures, legalisation did increase the number of abortions.”

    How did they manage to count the unofficial ones that weren’t reported?

    “Banning them may not reduce the number to zero, but it will reduce the numbers. You know, in the same way banning rape reduces the amount of rape. Despite such a punitive approach being taken towards rapists.”

    Dunno. What about murders committed in self-defence? A maniac is coming for you with a knife. You shoot them. Would knowing you’d be sent to prison for 20 years have dissuaded you from committing the premeditated murder?

    That doesn’t mean you *shouldn’t* punish murders committed in self-defence. After all, there’s no doubt you committed the murder, and murder is wrong. Prison is still better than being knifed, so you’re not actually *preventing* people killing in self-defence; but punishing it means that people will only kill in self-defence when it’s truly justified, when the penalty paid is worth it.

    It’s a point of view, anyway.

  33. So Much For Subtlety

    NiV – “It assumes that they’re desperate, facing a life-destroying disaster, the consequences of which are a lot worse and longer-term than whatever punishment you’ve got in mind for them if they’re caught.”

    So it is based on a false assumption. As that does not describe something like 99% of all abortions.

    “How did they manage to count the unofficial ones that weren’t reported?”

    Presumably the numbers in the year before legalisation were lower than the numbers in the year after. The number has exploded since the year after.

    “Dunno. What about murders committed in self-defence? A maniac is coming for you with a knife. You shoot them. Would knowing you’d be sent to prison for 20 years have dissuaded you from committing the premeditated murder?”

    What is the relevance? First of all, murders are not committed in self-defence. Such a killing is a homicide but it is not a murder.

    “That doesn’t mean you *shouldn’t* punish murders committed in self-defence.”

    Sure. You shouldn’t punish people who kill in self defence because killing in self defence is not a crime. What is the relevance here?

    “After all, there’s no doubt you committed the murder, and murder is wrong.”

    By definition murders are not committed in self defence so it is irrelevant. Killing is not in itself wrong. It depends on the circumstance. Murder is a wrongful killing.

  34. BobRocket,

    “You think that abortion shouldn’t be allowed after x weeks, fair enough.

    20 weekers can survive so instead of abortion, induction will be applied followed by intensive care until you can take your new baby home. (the mother didn’t want it, I don’t want it, you were too squeamish to kill it, you fucking keep it)”

    What the fuck? It’s not my baby. I’m not responsible for it, didn’t get the jollies to produce it.

    “The costs of all of this should be born [sic] by you and your cronies. (you do get the child benefit though).

    You can have a free market .xor. a nanny state.”

    A free market includes responsibility for your actions.

  35. Bloke in Costa Rica

    “By definition murders are not committed in self defence”

    Self-defence isn’t an affirmative defence against a charge of murder. It’s an absolute defence. This means that if you provably kill someone in self-defence it is required you be found not culpable of homicide, despite the fact of the homicide itself not being at issue. So NiV is using a category error as an argument.

  36. If you want your nation to survive -then abortions must be rationed -otherwise you will need to import foreigners who care little (and don’t need to) for you beliefs and history.
    Still there might well be trade in foetal bits for rich peoples medical needs.

  37. Let’s make “abortion” legal until 1 year after the child is born. If you figure that you can’t look after your baby then just give it some drugs.

  38. NiV – “Do you think a 13 year old girl who’s just been raped ought to be abandoned to be murdered by her outraged family?”

    SMFS – The real question is do you? Given I am not a supporter of immigration and multiculturalism. But I tell you what NiV, let us both agree that abortion should be legal for 13 year old girls who have been raped and stand a good chance of being murdered by their relatives. As stupid as it is to protect people who rape 13 year old girls. We can ban the rest.

    It is nice to see two differing minds agreeing on an acceptable case. Now we just need to have the same conversation 52 billion more times, using randomized participants. In the end we will come up with something that no one likes but most can live with.

  39. So Much For Subtlety

    Liberal Yank – “In the end we will come up with something that no one likes but most can live with.”

    Sure. A complete ban. There is no other rational solution.

  40. “What is the relevance? First of all, murders are not committed in self-defence. Such a killing is a homicide but it is not a murder.”

    And if you make abortion legal up until birth, that’s not murder either. Right?

    “Self-defence isn’t an affirmative defence against a charge of murder. It’s an absolute defence. This means that if you provably kill someone in self-defence it is required you be found not culpable of homicide, despite the fact of the homicide itself not being at issue.”

    And if abortion is made legal up until birth, then if you provably kill someone before birth, it is required you be found not culpable of homicide, right? So there’d be no problem then?

    “So NiV is using a category error as an argument.”

    Yep. It’s the same one you’ve all been using.

    There’s a distinction between what the law *is* and what it *should* be. You’ve all been using the ‘should’ definition up until now, but as soon as it proves inconvenient, you move smoothly to the legal definition. Tut!

    Anyway, it was simply an example to illustrate why punishment doesn’t necessarily reduce the crime. If murder in self-defence was made illegal, it wouldn’t reduce the number of such murders. (Which is undoubtedly part of the reason why they decided to make it an absolute defence.) Being unable to refute that point, you switch to equivocation.

    “If you want your nation to survive -then abortions must be rationed -otherwise you will need to import foreigners who care little (and don’t need to) for you beliefs and history.”

    Oh, is that the reason you’re all opposed?

    Well, as I pointed out in another post recently, birth is just another form of immigration, and you’d be *amazed* at how little the youngsters today respect your beliefs and history. Slavery? Racism? Sexism? Homophobia? Empire and Glory? Out of fashion, now.

    Every generation’s culture passes away with the next. Change is the only constant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *