Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Nadine Dorries MP loves her invisible friend

One of Iain Dale's favourite bloggers, Nadine Dorries MP has never written anything that I have the slightest interest in. But—hey!—we all have different tastes, and mine tend towards reading those who are interesting, funny or thorough.

Today she has written a post (that I cannot link to because her shitty ASPX blog software does not allow it) about abortion. Trixy has already written about this, and Unity has ripped her into tiny little pieces and pissed on the remnants over at Ministry of Truth—do go and read his post because I agree with most of what he has to say and simply cannot be arsed to write it all out again—but there are a few things that I'd like to add.

Nadine writes that
The Abortion Act of 1967 was based on lies and more lies. It was an appallingly drafted piece of legislation which, under intense pressure from the abortion rights lobby, allowed the present day situation of abortion used as a form of contraception to occur.

No, you listen to me, Dorries, while I spell this out for you: I can tell you right fucking now that no one uses abortion as "a form of contraception". It is a humiliating, painful, distressing and deeply traumatic experience that no woman (or man) would go through if they felt that they had any other reasonable choice.
Maybe life begins with the first beat of the human heart in the way that it ends with the last?

Do you really think so? Well, it rather depends how you view a human animal really, doesn't it? But, Nadine, let me point out that the heart is simply a blood pump.

Oh, and life doesn't end when it stops because, once oxygenated blood has ceased to be delivered to the brain, permanent brain damage doesn't occur until about one minute in and total brain death takes about two and a half to three minutes to occur.

Which is, if you think about it, you dozy bint, why we are able to resuscitate people.
As we now have 4D scanning and medical science advancing at the rate it is, maybe one day we will know for sure when life begins.

That rather depends on whether you believe in a soul doesn't it? If you don't I severely doubt that any scanning techniques will show us any more than it already does, i.e. simple, machanical, biological functionality.
When we truly know that, there will be no argument as to when and what limit abortion law is set, whether suspended in a safe dark womb or lying in a hospital crib, life is life.

No, it's not, Nadine; it is only a potential life and, sometimes, not even that. Heard of spontaneous miscarriages, have you?

And just to make the point really clear, let me quote Unity—at length (mainly because it made me laugh).
I also do not believe that the Holy Sacrament should be withheld from anyone for any reason. God is, above all things, loving and forgiving.

Well, at least she’s now being honest about her religious views. Banal but honest.
I know that many of my fellow Christians despair at my inability to condemn all abortion at any stage. To them, abortion is the taking of innocent life, based on the argument that if left uninterrupted a foetus at any stage would grow into full life.

These same friends however, all use various forms of contraception, and in an attempt not to be indelicate, some of which allow an egg to be fertilised and wasted.

It is a logical position that if you condemn all abortion, you must condemn various forms of contraception, if you truly believe that life begins at conception - I cannot do that. So I stay as true to my belief as I can, without hypocrisy or slight of word.

Hang on a second - let’s follow the ‘logic’ of this last argument.

If you believe that life begins at the point of conception - i.e. when sperm meets egg - them you must condemn not only all abortion but all forms of contraception which prevent a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb and developing into a foetus. That’s basically how IUD’s (’the coil’) and some contraceptive pills work, they don’t prevent conception they prevent implantation, which means that fertilised eggs, which some believe are already ‘life’ and therefore deserving of their full rights to exist and develop, are ‘wasted’.

But, on average only around 1 in 5 fertilised eggs actually implant successfully in the womb where contraception is NOT used. 80% of fertilised eggs, which some believe already constitute ‘life’, do not implant in the womb and do not, therefore, result in a pregnancy and all without any external intervention whatsoever?

Why does that happen?

Some Christians have a tendency to ascribe anything that doesn’t go quite as expected, especially if it goes badly pear-shaped, as being down to ‘god’s will’ - so if do you believe that then, logically, the fact that 80% of fertilised eggs fail to implant in the womb is also a matter of ‘god’s will’ - god has, somewhere along the line, decided for reasons known only to himself/herself/itself that 80% of all human life will be ‘wasted’ within a matter of a few days of conception via the process of menstruation.

Does that not make god an abortionist? In fact does it not follow that, by that ‘logic’, god is an abortionist (and to some, therefore, a murderer) on a scale unimagined by even the most bloodthirsty and murderous despot?
...

Got a bit of a thing about killing kids has this god of yours, hasn’t he? You piss the celestial skyfairy off and he whacks your kids big time - and you though Herod was a bit of fucker for snuffing first-borns.

And you are agreeing with a church that would refuse abortions for those who have been raped—in that memorable case in Ireland, by her own uncle—because your invisible friend considers a bundle of cells to be more important than a grown life.

It really is strange how different people react, isn't it? Apparently Nadine "started her working life as a nurse". Coincidentally, so did I and, whilst Nadine seems to have retained her faith in her invisible friend, what I saw in my year of caring for the terminally hopeless, ruined and wrecked snuffed out any last vestiges of belief in an all-powerful, caring being (admittedly, I had little left to excise, but there you go).

What caring being would visit a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage on a normal 29 year old lad just one day back from his honeymoon, eh? What loveable fairy would then give him another and then stop and allow his destroyed body to live for, potentially, decades whilst his entirely lucid mind contemplates the horror of his situation for all those years?

And don't bleat to me about freedom of will and action; if we have free will then praying to a god can do no good at all for, as soon as he intervenes, he has contravened the whole principle. And that being so, why make this life a little more miserable for people on the basis of your delusions?

Yes, one can say that we should not allow abortion to be undertaken lightly, but no one that I know who has had one has ever done so. They have done so because they feel that they have no other option.

So, please, Nadine, take your badly-argued drivel, your pathetically irrelevent faith and your ill-considered opinions and fuck off.

28 comments:

Roger Thornhill said...

I would like to add that womens' bodies routinely abort children for socioeconomic grounds - e.g. stress from relationships, threats, climatic, nourishment and all manner of reasons when the body subconsciously thinks it is not a good idea.

In a nutshell, Womens' bodies abort otherwise heathly foetuses for economic and "lifestyle" reasons BY DESIGN.

Who "designed" a woman's body then, eh?

Martin said...

DK,

As much as we agree on so many things, I'm afraid I think you're off base on this one.

Your error is a bit more sophisticated than the classic shaggers' argument (cue fat nasal female whining in noxious Brum) - "It's my body!"

Indeed - and for the most part you're welcome to it, darlin'. Not with a bargepole, and all that.

Feminism - the practice of promoting revulsion as a form of birthbirth control.

However, when "The rate of abortions was highest among women aged between 16 and 19. The NHS Tayside area had the highest figures for those aged from 15 to 44"; and "The Scottish health statistics showed the level of abortions among those aged under 16 also reached a record high of 362 in 2006." it's hard to see how these couldall vbe example of young women raped by their uncles -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6701695.stm

Social abortion DOES exiost in this country, for sure; and as far as I'm concerned, it's

"Off with their goolies!"

Devil's Kitchen said...

Martin,

Granted. However, we need to address the problem of underage and uninformed sex in those cases, not abortion.

DK

Neal Asher said...

Following that strange logic about 'life' ... isn't sperm alive? Wouldn't that make your average wanker a mass murderer?. Life ain't the point; bacteria are alive. Human intelligence is th epoint and the law needs to be resolved around that, not the airy fairy religious ideas of the soul and the sanctity of human life. It's about time secular societies had the courage to see that clearly.

Anonymous said...

Abortion "is a humiliating, painful, distressing and deeply traumatic experience that no woman (or man) would go through if they felt that they had any other reasonable choice.'

If that is the case, surely we ought to be telling young girls that this is the case? Would you support this?

Hamer Shawcross said...

DK,

Nice one mate. Agree totally.

Devil's Kitchen said...

If that is the case, surely we ought to be telling young girls that this is the case? Would you support this?

Of course. A choice made without information is not free choice.

DK

Shotgun said...

No, you listen to me, Dorries, while I spell this out for you: I can tell you right fucking now that no one uses abortion as "a form of contraception". It is a humiliating, painful, distressing and deeply traumatic experience that no woman (or man) would go through if they felt that they had any other reasonable choice.

Sorry DK, but if you think this, you need to get out more. I have to agree with the original assertion, knowing a little about it.

Pregnancy is a deeply distressing, traumatic and painful procedure, but are you suggesting that some/many chav type scum don't get pregnant in order to milk the system? If so, get a eye full of the likes of Jeremy Kyle.

Same difference.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Shotgun,

And there was me thinking that you only really get any benefits when you actually have your fucking child!

I know people have do have children at least partially because of the benefits on offer: you know that I know that. It's one of the reasons that I support the CBI: so that we stop paying people to have children.

But the whole point is that we are discussing people who aren't having children because they are aborting them. What system, precisely, are they milking by having an abortion?

And sorry, Shotgun, but if the kind of people who appear on Jeremy Kyle are representative of all women who have abortions -- or even the vast majority of them -- then I am Mickey fucking Mouse.

DK

Anonymous said...

Your listed blogger A Very British Dude has written an excellent piece which does a far better job than Nadine does of setting the Cardinal's original statement in a political context.

"You're a Catholic the moment Dad came".

Deserves reading.

woman on a raft said...

A total of 17 people so far have commented on Nadine's abortion blogs.

44 have commented on the hilarious consequences of the time she lost her knickers in the car park when they fell out of her bag. (Although half of these are Nadine replying to her fans who sound a little too interested in what became of the discarded frillies.)

So much for weighty ethical and socio-political issues centering the limits of autonomy and the moral basis for paternalistic state intervention.

Perhaps you should just do some knob gags.

Peter said...

Maybe you've written this before but presumably, DK, you do think that some embryos/foetuses/neonates/healthy teenagers ought not be killed over and above the wishes of their mothers, and that said killing would, by definition, constitute murder. When would this be?

Vicola said...

Well said DK. It's all very well for a nice, well settled, middle class woman to bang on about how abortion is wrong but not every lives in a nice semi detached and has tax payers funding their hefty expenses. Some people live in the real world where accidents do happen, no form of contraception apart from abstinence is 100% reliable and some foetuses are discovered to have horrific birth defects.

Shotgun said...

But the whole point is that we are discussing people who aren't having children because they are aborting them. What system, precisely, are they milking by having an abortion?

I love it when you speak dirty to me...:-)

They aren't milking the system DK, and I didn't think that was the point being made; the point was that abortion is used as a form of contraception, or not. My assertion is that it is and is just as stressful and painful as childbirth, so some will take the option of an abortion. It is isn't that they are milking the system of benefits, but that they are benefiting from milking the system.

And sorry, Shotgun, but if the kind of people who appear on Jeremy Kyle are representative of all women who have abortions -- or even the vast majority of them -- then I am Mickey fucking Mouse.

DK


Pass the cheese...:-)

Where I live I couldn't imagine anyone at all having an abortion as a form of contraception, but just a few short miles away from here there is one of the biggest housing estates in Europe and I would say that probably as many use the abortion option as deliberately get pregnant to milk the system. We wouldn't claim no-one gets pregnant deliberately, and we both agree on that, so why would we claim that no-one sees abortion as a form of contraception?

We're not disagreeing on Dories, because she is a twat and goes way beyond rationality, just on an aspect.

bookdrunk said...

Extra Nadine:

It is interesting that the Cardinal didn’t mention the Catholic Church’s position on contraception in his homily. Maybe because to do so would have been so obviously counterproductive?

That "counterproductive" position being the opposition of contraception, which might in turn reduce unwanted pregnancies and the need for abortion. Looks like controlling the sex lives of adults is just much more important, eh?

Mark Wadsworth said...

Good stuff DK, I broadly agree.

Roger T (first post) yes, I have heard of this theory, so how the heck do these women in refugee camps in Darfur manage to have babies?

What on earth are they thinking, is another question.

David B. Wildgoose said...

I disapprove of legal abortion but recognise that it's a necessary evil. But I consider it obscene that abortions can be carried out until 24 weeks - that's a baby, just like the ones the same age being kept alive in the incubators down the hall!

And that is without taking account of the eugenics aspect. My eldest child was born with club feet (which were corrected by surgery). It was spotted on the first scan, and we were cheerily informed "Don't worry, it's not too late for an abortion". (Presumably because it's cheaper than the corrective surgery).

And what about the father? After all, we don't get any option about paying to support a child once it's been conceived. So why shouldn't we have a say in whether or not the child survives? Fair's fair after all!

woman on a raft said...

Nadine has started in on child safety, but it is like trying to read a bucket of Lego which has had all the little knobs filed off. It is incoherent; the arguments will not stick together.

This only matters in as much as she is part of the Cornerstone group, the shock troops of Her Majesty's Opposition, and therefore it would be preferable to have her putting a boot in to the other side rather than her own ruddy electorate for once, instead of leaving it to DK to do for public benefit. (Booting the opposition, not beating up the voters.)

I do not want a dozy tart who cannot marshal her own underwear getting anywhere near a democratic mandate.

On the Cornerstone website they claim to have 40 members but then put up 28 photos, Nadine being the only photographed female. (I don't know, maybe the other 12 are all female.) The majority of the photos most closely resemble those gargoyles they use at the end of drainpipes in medival cathedrals.

If this was the result of the secret captive breeding plan, then I say let's tell the jeunesse dore of Tayside that they can each have a council flat and guaranteed money if they just sprog more often so we have a bit more to choose from.

Actually, I'm slightly uncomfortable with the abortion rate, but only because I don't think we should be making people wait until they are half-way to a bus pass and their DNA is dropping to bits before they can afford to stop and drop. Then they come clamouring for IVF and adoption etc.

16 is probably too young to to carry a pregnancy. Nothing wrong with 19, though. Perfect. We've got far too many people who are told to wait another 20 years. By the time Leo graduates, Cherie will have been retired for almost five years.

But on the bright side, by the time Leo graduates, Cherie will have been retired for almost five years

Mark Wadsworth said...

Did you see TV footage of the Wicked Witch at the G8 thingy yesterday? Waddling around in a silk full-body nighties she was, looking, quite frankly, like a sack of potatoes filled with shit.

Amir said...

DK,

Fisking your “fisk” should not take long. I consider it a matter of basic intellectual hygiene:

1) “It is a humiliating, painful, distressing and deeply traumatic experience that no woman (or man) would go through if they felt that they had any other reasonable choice”

Oh. Boo-hoo. Putting a condom on is hardly rocket science; and asking your boyfriend (or one-night-lover) to do so is hardly the most demanding request in the world. Why, oh why, should a precious tiny fetus pay the ultimate price for the solipsistic selfishness of two people who can’t be bothered to look after their genitals? The “pain” and “distress” and “trauma” experienced by the pregnant woman pales into insignificance next to the brutal murder of an innocent life. And yes, I can assure you, it’s a very, very brutal process. The details of an abortion are conveniently eschewed from your rant. The baby is smashed, pummeled, dismembered and brutalized by a hideous vacuum-like contraption, which wouldn’t look out of place in a neo-Nazi eugenics programme. [If you would like to see the endgame of DK’s argument, I suggest you click . But be warned, the content is very graphic.]

2) “…let me point out that the heart is simply a blood pump.”

Such spurious reasoning would not look out of place in Orwell’s Oceania. O’Brien (a vicious torturer and totalitarian brainwasher) tells his captive Winston Smith in Room 101: “You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident…But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.” Like O’Brien, you reduce all morality to a mere biological process; nothing more, nothing less. Your libertarianism has more in common with Mikail Bakunin or the Marquis de Sade than it does with Charles Murray or Murray Rothbard.

3) “That rather depends on whether you believe in a soul doesn't it?”

No it doesn’t. Christopher Hitchens – a militant “anti-theist” and author of
God is Not Great – uses empirical arguments to sully the left-liberal case for abortion-on-demand. Anti-abortion atheists are represented by an organization called the .

4) “No, it's not, Nadine; it is only a potential life and, sometimes, not even that.”

Nice bit of semantic trickery there, DK. Your demagoguery would make Eisenstein and Riefenstahl jealous. Okay, so you refer to the fetus as a “potential life?” I totally disagree: the fetus is “a life with a potential.” There’s a subtle but substantial difference.

5) [Unity’s post] “Does that not make god an abortionist?”

*Yawn* Unity sprinkles his prose with cringe-worthy, quasi-metaphysical devises that make no sense whatsoever. God is not an abortionist because He does not exist in corporeal form and is not subject to the same laws which govern mankind. One does not require the scholastic training of a monk to realize this. And don’t give me any of this crap about an “invisible friend.” There is no way of proving or disproving the existence of God. Period.

6) “So, please, Nadine, take your badly-argued drivel, your pathetically irrelevent faith and your ill-considered opinions and fuck off.”

Stop making such a puerile spectacle out of yourself. You can scoff and spit and snigger as much as you like, but you can do so in the knowledge that you are protected form arbitrary abuse by Christian law and Christian morality. In one of the most important
books ever written, the godfather of libertarian philosophy, Charles Murray, came to the following conclusion: the greatest human accomplishments owe much of their existence to Christianity, which of all religions seems best able to provide us with a purpose in life, and a motivation for attempting great deeds. And even secularization has been advanced on Christian principles, which show up, for example, in the distinction between the public and the private, where the private is recognized as having a certain inviolability.

Tell ya what: let’s see how far you get in North Korea or Saudi Arabia with that smug libertarian shite. “Not far” I tell ye.

Amir

Amir said...

DK,

Fisking your “fisk” should not take long. I consider it a matter of basic intellectual hygiene:

1) “It is a humiliating, painful, distressing and deeply traumatic experience that no woman (or man) would go through if they felt that they had any other reasonable choice”

Oh. Boo-hoo. Putting a condom on is hardly rocket science; and asking your boyfriend (or one-night-lover) to do so is hardly the most demanding request in the world. Why, oh why, should a precious tiny fetus pay the ultimate price for the solipsistic selfishness of two people who can’t be bothered to look after their genitals? The “pain” and “distress” and “trauma” experienced by the pregnant woman pales into insignificance next to the brutal murder of an innocent life. And yes, I can assure you, it’s a very, very brutal process. The details of an abortion are conveniently eschewed from your rant. The baby is smashed, pummeled, dismembered and brutalized by a hideous vacuum-like contraption, which wouldn’t look out of place in a neo-Nazi eugenics programme. [If you would like to see the endgame of DK’s argument, I suggest you click . But be warned, the content is very graphic.]

2) “…let me point out that the heart is simply a blood pump.”

Such spurious reasoning would not look out of place in Orwell’s Oceania. O’Brien (a vicious torturer and totalitarian brainwasher) tells his captive Winston Smith in Room 101: “You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident…But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.” Like O’Brien, you reduce all morality to a mere biological process; nothing more, nothing less. Your libertarianism has more in common with Mikail Bakunin or the Marquis de Sade than it does with Charles Murray or Murray Rothbard.

3) “That rather depends on whether you believe in a soul doesn't it?”

No it doesn’t. Christopher Hitchens – a militant “anti-theist” and author of
God is Not Great – uses empirical arguments to sully the left-liberal case for abortion-on-demand. Anti-abortion atheists are represented by an organization called the .

4) “No, it's not, Nadine; it is only a potential life and, sometimes, not even that.”

Nice bit of semantic trickery there, DK. Your demagoguery would make Eisenstein and Riefenstahl jealous. Okay, so you refer to the fetus as a “potential life?” I totally disagree: the fetus is “a life with a potential.” There’s a subtle but substantial difference.

5) [Unity’s post] “Does that not make god an abortionist?”

*Yawn* Unity sprinkles his prose with cringe-worthy, quasi-metaphysical devises that make no sense whatsoever. God is not an abortionist because He does not exist in corporeal form and is not subject to the same laws which govern mankind. One does not require the scholastic training of a monk to realize this. And don’t give me any of this crap about an “invisible friend.” There is no way of proving or disproving the existence of God. Period.

6) “So, please, Nadine, take your badly-argued drivel, your pathetically irrelevent faith and your ill-considered opinions and fuck off.”

Stop making such a puerile spectacle out of yourself. You can scoff and spit and snigger as much as you like, but you can do so in the knowledge that you are protected form arbitrary abuse by Christian law and Christian morality. In one of the most important
books ever written, the godfather of libertarian philosophy, Charles Murray, came to the following conclusion: the greatest human accomplishments owe much of their existence to Christianity, which of all religions seems best able to provide us with a purpose in life, and a motivation for attempting great deeds. And even secularization has been advanced on Christian principles, which show up, for example, in the distinction between the public and the private, where the private is recognized as having a certain inviolability.

Tell ya what: let’s see how far you get in North Korea or Saudi Arabia with that smug libertarian shite. “Not far” I tell ye.

Amir

Amir said...

The hyperlinks have fucked up. It looked fine in the preview...?

Trixy said...

How apt

Little Black Sambo said...

Not all libertarians would favour giving tyrannical power to the mother over the vulnerable and dependent but distinct and unique human being temporarily residing in her womb; and sneering about the "imaginary friend" (my, how cutting and witty!) makes me wonder whether you don't after all belong in the Guardian.
How about a debate between yourself and Tim Worstall on the subject.

Devil's Kitchen said...

LBS,

Believe it or not, Tim and I have had long debates on this subject; it is about the only issue on which we disagree (we have minor altercations on points of climate change as well, though we both come to the same conclusion as to what action we should take).

I don't favour tyrannical rights but there is an issue of debate over when a life is a life. I think that the level set right now is about right, to be honest.

DK

David B. Wildgoose said...

Great post Amir. I approve whole-heartedly, not least because I consider myself a Humanist following Jeremy Bentham's definition of "Christianity without the Christ".

Little Black Sambo said...

"I think that the level set right now is about right, to be honest." You and Dorries are much the same; it's all about what you feel - except that you feel different things. An individual human life begins either at fertilization or implantation: thereafter, destroying "it" results in a particular person not being born. The issue is not really or mainly about WHEN life begins, but TO WHOM it BELONGS. Your evident contempt for those of us who have an "imaginary friend" seems to imply that the mother-to-be has the power of life or death over her unborn infant, who has no liberty or protection at all.

Peter said...

LBS is right. You and Dorries are closer than you think. At one stage it's a blob of jelly, then at the stroke of midnight it's a human. You just disagree when midnight is.