Thu 26 Mar at 14:44
|
Self explanatory title. I abhor that nicey nicey, politically correct, pseudo-Christianity which almost always supports leftwing attitudes - which in most cases are profoundly anti-Gospel. This Blog supports persecuted Christians. This Blog exposes cults. This Blog opposes junk science. UPDATED DAILY. This is not a forum. This Blog supports truly Christian websites and aids their efforts. It is hardhitting and unashamedly evangelical so if it offends - please do not come to this site!
Thu 26 Mar at 14:44
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Why the House of Lords abortion vote leaves me angry, ashamed and apprehensive.
(Photo: Getty/iStock)Some evils shout. They march, they headline, they provoke outrage.
Others whisper. They slip through quietly, dressed as progress, framed as compassion, yet no less deadly.
It was this quieter evil that emerged on Wednesday 18th March in the House of Lords.
Under the language of reform, two decisions were advanced: the decriminalisation of DIY abortion up to birth; and the continuation of the status quo since Covid with the decision to not reinstate the requirement for in-person medical consultation before abortion pills are prescribed.
|
Many opposed it, including the new Archbishop of Canterbury and several bishops. But the effort failed.
And something has shifted.
Two Decisions. One Message.
Strip it down and this is what now stands:
- There is effectively no time limit on abortion.
- Abortion is treated as something that can be self-administered, without proper oversight.
Together, they declare: abortion is no big deal.
But it is a big deal. It is always a big deal. And it leaves me with three emotions: angry, ashamed and apprehensive.
Let me say first: there are real heartbreaking situations here. There are women under pressure, fear, coercion and deep distress. We must be compassionate. But compassion that demands silence in the face of wrong is not compassion; it is surrender.
Angry – Because Life Is Being Diminished
I am angry because life is being trivialised. We are told it is ‘just a foetus’. But that language collapses in the later stages of pregnancy. The unborn child can hear, recognise voices, respond, even learn.
This is human life. Yet the law now effectively says that ending that life, even at the very end, is not a crime.
Let us speak plainly:
Abortion doesn’t prevent a woman from becoming a mother. Abortion makes a woman the mother of a dead baby.
That is not rhetoric. That is reality.
And the Bible speaks with clarity:
‘You shall not murder.’
(Exodus 20:13 NIV)
‘Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers?’
(Job 31:15 NIV)
Life is not ours to dispose of. It is God’s to give and God’s to take.
Ashamed – Because Responsibility Is Being Abandoned
I am ashamed. Ashamed that decisions of such gravity are made so quickly, so lightly.
Ashamed that moral seriousness is being replaced by cultural convenience.
And deeply ashamed that so many bishops did not even turn up.
When the church should have been present, it was absent.
When a voice was needed, there was silence.
When lives were at stake, seats were empty.
Absence, in moments like this, is not neutral. It is a statement.
The church has always declared that human beings are made in the image of God – sacred, not disposable. Yet now, under pressure, those convictions are quietly set aside. We were once a nation that aspired upward. Now we risk drifting downward.
Apprehensive – Because This Does Not Stop Here
I am apprehensive because this does not stop here.
If life before birth can be ended without consequence, what anchors life after birth?
If worth is decided by convenience, then no one is ultimately safe.
History warns us that when a society decides some lives matter less, it has already begun to lose its way.
Today the unborn. Tomorrow – who knows?
But my deepest apprehension is this ...
God sees. God knows. And God has spoken.
‘Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.’
(Galatians 6:7 NIV)
‘Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.’
(Isaiah 5:20 NIV)
We may rewrite laws, but we cannot rewrite truth. A nation that sanctions the destruction of its most vulnerable cannot indefinitely escape the consequences – spiritually, morally or socially.
This is not just about law, it is about who we are. The gospel tells us that God does not discard the weak – he enters their world. He comes not in power, but as a child. And from that moment comes a truth that shaped civilisation at its best: every life matters. Especially the smallest. Especially the voiceless.
And there is no one more voiceless than the unborn.
So I will stand for them. Because in the end, a nation is not measured by its progress, nor its prosperity, nor even its laws, but by how it treats those who cannot defend themselves. And when we silence the smallest voices, ignore the weakest lives, and justify what should never be justified, we may quiet our conscience, we may pass our laws, we may persuade ourselves, but we will not escape this truth: God will judge.
‘Lord, have mercy on us.’

‘Tax wealth. Get growth.” That’s the pithy conclusion of a piece by the Loughborough MP Jeevun Sandher for the news website LabourList. But while there’s truth to some of what Sandher writes, his overall argument does not stack up.
Sandher does not call for the government to tax wealth directly, for example, with a net wealth tax. This idea, much loved on the radical left as a solution to all our ills, would be a disaster.
As well as being impractical to levy, a net wealth tax would lead to punitive tax rates on investment returns, undermine start-up (and scaling) businesses and lead to capital flight. For a country like Britain it would amount to a kind of economic euthanasia. Instead, Sandher’s argument is that we should rely less on taxing work and more on taxing investment returns — dividends, capital gains and rental income. This wouldn’t only be fairer, we are told, but would boost the economy too.
It is true that investment income is generally taxed at “preferential” rates, with lower headline tax rates than ordinary income and/or exclusion from national insurance contributions. Many have suggested having one set of tax rates for all kinds of income. It seems logical. But unless you make adjustments to the tax base — giving tax relief for savings, allowing for losses, accounting for inflation, offsetting the impact of corporation tax — taxing capital and ordinary income at the same rates creates a big, structural tax bias against investment. That will tend to reduce capital accumulation and make us poorer.
If you do make those adjustments, you may end up with a tax system that is more rational. But it will also be more complex — and won’t necessarily generate much more revenue. There’s a case for these sorts of reforms, but they won’t amount to a significant rebalancing of the tax system.
Similarly, the idea that higher tax rates on capital income increase investment — by encouraging businesses to reinvest profits rather than distribute them to shareholders — can be easily dismissed.
We shouldn’t try to lock profits up inside companies. We just want capital to flow where it will have the highest returns. Returning money to shareholders gives them more cash to invest elsewhere. This is a feature not a bug of shareholder capitalism.
None of this is to say that the right kind of tax reform wouldn’t boost growth. But we need a different approach to one that simply raises taxes on investment income then hopes for some counterintuitive magic to happen.
Corporation tax and business rates need to be reformed so that they don’t discourage investment. Stamp duty needs to be phased out, perhaps as properties change hands, in favour of a low but recurring property tax. And we desperately need to eliminate the cliff edges and tax traps in income tax and VAT that stop people from working and earning.
If there’s rebalancing to be done then, over time, it should be about getting more from taxing income when it is consumed and less from taxing it when it is earned and invested. We just need to work out how to do that in a way that spreads the burden fairly.
By contrast, taxing wealth would only deepen our economic malaise.
Tom Clougherty is an independent policy analyst. Times.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thu 26 Mar at 14:44 Hi, Last week I shared about the brutal pattern of violence facing religious leaders in Colombia. Today, I want to sh...