Monday, December 04, 2023

I wouldn't want to be in their shoes on Judgement Day if they haven't repented!

 Two MPs attempt to hijack government bill with extreme abortion up to birth amendments.

Right to Life UK  02 December 2023.

(Photo: Unsplash/Jurica Koletić)

Pro-abortion MPs, Stella Creasy and Diana Johnson, have hijacked a government bill by tabling amendments that propose removing offences that make it illegal to perform a self-abortion at any point right through to birth.

After Tuesday's debate on the Second Reading of the Government's Criminal Justice Bill,, Stella Creasy and Diana Johnson, tabled their extreme amendments to the Government's flagship Criminal Justice Bill.

Neither of the amendments outlines circumstances in which it would continue to be an offence to perform a self-abortion – the changes to the law would apply throughout nine months of pregnancy and would not exclude sex-selective abortions.

Stella Creasy's amendment, if it became law, would also repeal Section 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act, which is currently used to make it illegal to hide the body of a dead newborn baby, including in circumstances when the baby has been killed through infanticide. Section 60 is also important in stopping individuals from preventing an investigation into the cause of a baby's death when infanticide is suspected.

These amendments would likely lead to an increased number of babies' lives being ended through late-term abortions performed at home, as well as the lives of many more women being endangered.

No criminal sanctions for abortion at any stage of pregnancy

Johnson's amendment would ensure there are no criminal sanctions for a woman who has an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. However, by amending the abortion law in this way, self-abortions will, de facto, become possible up to birth as women could deceive abortion providers about their gestational age (as in the case of Carla Foster, who pretended to be 7 weeks pregnant but took pills at 32-34 weeks gestation).

In such circumstances, neither the woman nor the abortion provider (who only has to act in "good faith" and does not need to verify gestational age via an in-person appointment) could be held accountable for a late-term abortion.

Prior to her tabling the amendment, during the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill, Johnson insisted that her proposal "would not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting in England and Wales". However, since the majority of abortions now take place away from a clinical setting, women would be able to take abortion pills at home at any stage of their pregnancy up to birth without committing an offence.

During their speeches on the Criminal Justice Bill, both MPs drew attention to the increased instances of illegal abortions since DIY at-home abortions have been introduced.

Johnson made an apparent reference to Carla Foster, who was prosecuted after the British Pregnancy Advisory Service sent out abortion pills to her leading to the death of her baby, Lily, 22 weeks beyond the legal limit for at-home abortions.

However, this case would not have happened had the gestation of baby Lily been accurately identified by ultrasound or a physical examination during an in-person appointment. If this appointment had taken place, the gestation of the baby would have been accurately identified and an abortion could not have taken place.

When asked why there had been an increase in prosecutions for illegal abortions by Independent MP for Beckenham Bob Stewart, Creasy admitted the legalisation of abortions outside of a clinical setting was a possible reason.
She said: "I wish I could tell the hon. Gentleman what I think is the cause for sure. There are a number of pressures—perhaps the move towards telemedicine or a renewed interest in the issue..."

Conservative MP Maria Miller, while supporting decriminalisation, questioned whether the Criminal Justice Bill was "the right place to do that, when there is perhaps not sufficient time to go through all the details".

Serious health concerns

Government data released last week demonstrates that self-performing a late-term medical abortion away from a clinical environment without in-person medical supervision puts the lives of women at considerable risk.

The data shows that a medical abortion performed at 20 weeks and over has a complication rate 160 times that of an abortion under 10 weeks. The complication rate is likely to be much higher for women performing their own abortions at home without medical supervision well beyond the current 24-week time limit.

Right To Life UK spokesperson Catherine Robinson said: "The obvious reason why there were so few prosecutions in the first 160 years following the legal prohibition on abortion established in the Offences Against the Person Act (1861), but an increase in the last few years, is because of the fact that over half of all abortions now happen without any in-person medical oversight.

"In at-home abortions, since there is no mechanism to establish the gestation of the unborn baby, an unknown number of abortions are now taking place after the 10 week limit. The baby Lily case is the most high-profile of these cases in which a woman had an at-home abortion without medical supervision at 32 weeks gestation, and it is likely just the tip of the iceberg.

"Incredibly, even those pushing for a change in the law acknowledge that the move to 'telemedicine' abortion – in which there is no in-person consultation with a medical professional – is a likely reason for the increase in prosecutions.

"The in-person requirement for abortion which existed up until 2020 acted as a safeguard to protect women and their babies not only from abortion which becomes increasingly dangerous for women at later gestations, but also from the threat of coercion.

"Instead of pushing for fewer safeguards through these amendments, MPs who care about women and their babies should be seeking greater oversight and protections, including an ending of abortion outside of a clinical setting."

© Right to Life UK.

Christian Today.

Sunday, December 03, 2023

Oh, If Only! - Provided Nigel Has Learned Lessons From The Past and Can Enthuse Rather Than Scare Away Those Desirous of Supporting Him - All Is There To Play For.

Nigel Farage, the comeback kid, looks set to annihilate the Tories.

The great ringmaster has one more shot in him, and the return of David Cameron will provide all the motivation he needs.
Nigel Farage, photographed near his home in the village of Downe, Kent
CREDIT: Geoff Pugh
The Cabinet reshuffle that brought back David Cameron was supposed to reunite the Tory “sensibles”, reassure centre-ground voters and put Rishi Sunak on course for a general election victory next year. If one could liken it to a film scene it would be the end of The Railway Children when the young Jenny Agutter runs along the platform shouting “daddy, my daddy” before throwing herself into the arms of her father, freshly returned from a spell in political disgrace. 
Unfortunately for Sunak, a different film scene now stalks the minds of Conservative MPs – the one in The Shining where Jack Nicholson smashes in a door panel with an axe, pushes his manically expressive face through and declares: “Here’s Johnny!”
“Here’s Nigel!” is the cry that is likely to send a chill down the collective spine of the Conservative parliamentary party in ten days or so, when Nigel Farage returns from his sojourn in the I’m A Celebrity jungle. Because the man they thought they had securely trapped in the cellar of British politics after implementing Brexit has refused to fade away. Instead, he has become a brighter star with broader appeal and may even be on the brink of attaining national treasure status.
And he will be coming home to a political context which seems tailor-made for him. The Prime Minister’s credibility on the totemic issue of controlling immigration – both legal and illegal – is in shreds. The Reform UK party, of which Farage is president, is suddenly chalking up double figure poll ratings, while Tory scores are in the low 20s.
It had been widely assumed that Farage’s days in frontline politics were over – not least because he told us all so in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph in March 2021, declaring: “I know I’ve come back once or twice when people thought I’d gone, but this is it. It’s done. It’s over.”
As someone who worked with him and witnessed various departures and comebacks during the Brexit campaigning years, I never found that wholly convincing. And sure enough, some months ago talk began in the usual networks of Nigel telling friends he now believed he had “one last shot” at the political big time.
His preferred scenario was the advent of a PR electoral system for Westminster that might be part of a Labour-Lib Dem coalition deal after the next election. But now the route is much more straightforward: knock even bigger lumps out of the Conservatives by driving Reform on to 15 and even 20 per cent vote shares, then inspect the rubble post-election and decide whether conducting a reverse takeover of the twitching Tory corpse or replacing the party altogether as the main Right-of-centre grouping looks the better bet.
One jibe Farage has found it hard to deal with is that he has stood for Parliament seven times and never been elected. Yet friends have persuaded him to look at things differently and consider himself the pre-eminent “gamechanger” of British politics. It was his campaigning at the head of Ukip that forced Cameron to offer an In/Out referendum on the EU, after all. That ended up doing for Dave first time around.
And then it was Farage’s brilliant convening of the Brexit Party and crushing of the Tory vote share down to nine per cent in the 2019 Euro-elections that forced Conservative MPs to dump Theresa May and install Boris Johnson to “Get Brexit Done”.
So if the great ringmaster of the maverick Right decides, as I expect him to, that engaging in politics as a blood sport beats TV presenting in the run-up to the next general election then Sunak’s Conservatives should prepare less for a defeat and more for total annihilation. 

I Am Almost Speechless But Will Remark That This Is What Leftist Dogma Brings You Too.

Owen Jones sparks fresh outrage over 'utterly horrific' claims.

Guardian journalist Owen Jones has been criticised for questioning Hamas's war crimes.

Owen Jones criticised for questioning Hamas' war crimes

0 seconds of 2 minutes, 12 secondsVolume 90%
 

A Guardian journalist is facing backlash after appearing to question the terror group Hamas's war crimes.

Owen Jones discussed the Hamas-Israel war in a video shown on TalkTV on Friday, December 1 where he made bold claims that there was "no evidence" for some of Hamas's alleged war crimes. Express.

Why Aren't Christians More Loving?

 https://www.christiantoday.com/article/why.arent.christians.more.loving/137938.htm

God's Love.


 

Tyson.

At Home With The Furys is a missed opportunity to explore the boxer’s Christian faith.

By Tim Bechervaise

At home with the Furys

Tyson Fury is a world champion boxer and an outspoken - if often controversial - Christian. So Tim Bechervaise was keen to see how his faith would be portrayed in the new Netflix docuseries that follows the family in the aftermath of Fury’s retirement from professional sport

When Tyson Fury comes out on top, he’s a very happy man – both in the ring and, now, on Netflix.

The undefeated heavyweight boxing champion was thrilled to announce to his six million Instagram followers over the weekend that At Home With The Furys, the Netflix docuseries that follows him and his family after his retirement, is number one on the streaming service, just 48 hours after being released.

I am no boxing fan, but I was intrigued to watch the series because I find Fury fascinating. He comes from a traveller background (hence his stage name ‘the Gypsy King’) and has never lost a professional boxing match. The larger than life character has overcome addiction, is open about his mental health problems and fans adore him. Oh, and he’s a Christian - with the odd, controversial outspoken view. PC.

Birdie.

 

Surprised by Oxford.

 Surprised by Oxford: A great love story, but where’s the God plot gone?

By Jacinta Read

245610299_115541397553834_2434671290717392803_n

Carolyn Webber’s memoir, Surprised by Oxford, is a modern-day conversion story, says Jacinta Read. But its film adaptation is more of a love story with a side of Christianity. How it lands with audiences is yet to be seen

The film adaptation of the award-winning memoir by Carolyn Webber boasts stunning cinematography of what is arguably one of the world’s most breathtaking cities.

Surprised by Oxford is based on the true story of Caro, an intellectually gifted Canadian who is awarded a full scholarship to the University of Oxford. While acclimating to her new environment, Caro’s attention gets diverted when she encounters TDH (tall, dark and handsome). Caro finds herself on a three-fold journey of discovery as she grapples with questions of self, romance and God. PC.

Er ... Yes.

 

Dishonesty MUST Be Challenged Every Time.

 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12534611/Stonehenge-built-Britain-black-country-new-childrens-book-claims.html

Morality Suddenly Looks Very Appealing.

 Russell Brand pushed society to ‘peak promiscuity’. Christian teaching on sex looks more appealing than ever.

With allegations of sexual assault and rape against comedian Russell Brand dominating news headlines, Dominic Hewitson asks whether his downfall will mark the end of the Sexual Revolution’s cultural reign – and where we go from here

Russell_Brand_London_Revolution_Protest_2

Source: wikimedia

The former poster boy of male promiscuity and hedonism, Russell Brand, has recently been accused of serious sexual offences, including rape and sexual assault. He strenously denies these allegations, and no charges have been brought. 

The comedian, who has reinvented himself over the past few years as a wellness guru, posted a video across his social media accounts, in which he stated that all of his sexual relationships have been consensual.

Brand has always been incredibly open about his promiscuity over the years, and even went to rehab for sex addiction in 2005. Everyone laughed and egged Brand on, and his career went from strength to strength, even after his appalling treatment of Andrew Sachs on BBC Radio 2, when Brand boasted to the comedian about sleeping with his granddaughter live on air.

NO LONGER FUNNY?

However, the tide seems to have now turned on the man who was once the high priest of sexual liberation. The disturbing details of Brand’s alleged sexual assaults were laid out in detail across the front pages of The Sunday Times and in a Channel 4 Dispatches programme, which intertwined clips of Brand’s past performances with anonymous actors voicing the victim’s allegations.

This juxtaposition would have sent a shiver down the spine of all who were watching, but especially those who were involved in showbiz in late 90s and noughties. Brand brazenly joked about graphic sexual acts and his overt womanising to millions every week and, strangely, that was all part of his appeal back then.

CHRISTIANITY NEEDS TO OFFER A STRONG ALTERNATIVE TO THE CULTURE, A PLACE THAT WOMEN AND MEN CAN BE PROTECTED

Dispatches opens with a segment from his 2006 sell-out stand-up tour, Shame. On the front of the DVD recording of the show, he is described as “the most exciting comedian of his generation”’ and in the blurb of the audio CD his humour is described as “dark, provocative and very very funny”.

Fast forward to 2023 and the same channel that gave Brand a platform are now using their own archives to highlight his bad behaviour. In a strange twist of fate, various clips of Brand presenting Big Brother’s Big Mouth on E4 (owned by Channel 4) were used in Dispatches to demonstrate Brand’s predatory and transgressive behaviour towards women.

So the presumption is that Channel 4 thought his sexually explicit jokes were funny back then, but they don’t now? And if so, what has changed?

SPEAKING INTO THE VACUUM

In her book The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, Louise Perry says that the story of the sexual revolution “isn’t only a story of women freed from the burdens of chastity and motherhood. It is also a story about the triumph of the playboy.” And boy did Brand triumph, bragging about sleeping with almost 1,000 women and supposedly bedding nine in one day on one occasion.

“We now have a vacuum when it comes to sexual guidance,” explained Perry on Premier Unbelievable?’s ‘The Big Conversation’. “The dominant message is: prioritise your own freedom and pleasure. As long as you consent, and the other person consents, and you are all adults, it’s all fine. I think that’s a completely inadequate ethical system. Removing the social guardrails was dangerous.”

BRAND BRAZENLY JOKED ABOUT GRAPHIC SEXUAL ACTS AND HIS OVERT WOMANISING TO MILLIONS EVERY WEEK 

If a sexually liberal culture celebrates the promiscuity of men like Brand, should we be surprised when it enables them to abuse their power? When a product (Brand) of this cultural movement (the sexual revolution) is now looked at by one of its major proponents (Channel 4) as suspect, what happens next?

Rod Dreher believes that this is where Christianity should step up: “The Church needs to…not be apologetic for what it teaches. Sex is a good thing, but it must be channelled in a way that is life-giving and holy. The Church knows how to do this, it just needs to quit being so afraid and stand up unapologetically for the wisdom of scripture.”

Christ’s message in the Sermon on the Mount makes his thoughts on sexual immorality crystal clear: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).

Not only does Jesus reaffirm that adultery is wrong, but he also extends this commandment to include even lustful thoughts. In doing so, he underscores the importance of purity not just in action, but also in thought. Imagine if this teaching was seen as the ideal in our current culture. It would be an incredibly radical shift – but surely, if anything, that’s what Christianity should be.

A NEW WAY

This kind of teaching is something that Rod Dreher claims he never heard from the pulpit: “When I converted to Catholicism at the age of 26, I was living in Washington DC. I knew that, for me, the greatest dying to self that I had to do was dying to sexual activity. I knew I had to be chaste until I married. That was so difficult because I couldn’t find any priest who wanted to help me walk the straight and narrow. They were embarrassed by the Church’s teaching. Four years later, when I did get married, I found I had grown so much spiritually and emotionally through my chastity, but I had some bitterness that I had to do it almost entirely on my own.”

As the latest ONS figures have reported, Christianity is on the decline in the UK, and ‘no religion’ is on the up. Perhaps this is, in part, to do with the Church - across all denominations – failing to show moral authority on matters of sex and relationships.

Now that their progressive poster boy, Russell Brand, has fallen, the sexual revolution’s liberal stance on these matters should come under some welcome scrutiny.

But Dreher’s experience is a common one for young people looking to the Church for guidance while attempting to weave their way through the minefield field that is sex and relationships in the secular West. It is clear that something needs to change. Christianity needs to offer a strong alternative to the culture, a place that women and men can be protected physically and spiritually. Could this radical alternative be the rediscovery of the benefits of orthodox Christian teaching?

I Just Spotted This.

Apple’s pagan advert is offensive to Christians.

By Kate Orson 21 September 2023

Appla ad

Apple’s latest advert sees Mother Nature assessing the tech giant’s green credentials. But Apple would never dare depict Christian faith, says Kate Orson. Why are they willing to dabble with paganism?  PC.

Shame On You, Mr Biden!

Biden has surrendered Israel to his heartless, hard-Left Democrats.

It looks increasingly like Biden – and his moral backbone – are forsaking Israel
My recent visit to Israel coincided with David Cameron’s first trip as Foreign Secretary. Cameron had flown in to do rather what one would expect of a Foreign Office stooge: an exercise in appearing to signal support for Israel, but only inasmuch as its self-defence is limited.
Which is to say, not long after saying all the right things about the footage of some of the most gruesome barbarism ever filmed, as Hamas gangs executed, raped and kidnapped Israeli kibbutzniks and festivalgoers, Cameron “warned Israel”, via the BBC, that its war efforts in response are too much for his liking. The Gazan death toll, Cameron declared, is “too high”. One wonders what the “right amount” would be.
Thankfully, Israelis don’t much care about any of what our august Foreign Secretary, back from the wilds of Chipping Norton, has to say about their country’s war efforts. In fact, when I asked them what they made of Cameron’s visit, nobody had even known it had happened.
Israelis are, with good reason, much more interested in what sort of rhetoric and support comes from the US. For decades, the two countries have worked closely. Israel has traded its wares – some of the best military and spy technology in the world – and maintained its position as the only holdout of US values in the entire Middle East and quite a bit beyond. In return, Israelis rightly expect American investment, armour and a vague promise of protection.
But while Western support for Israel hasn’t vanished completely – and the US is still committed to providing Israel with billions in funding per year – the tone and stance has perilously shifted.
Biden initially appeared strong on Israel, even against the yowls of his party, which is now a toxic assemblage that has usurped the better angels of America’s nature and produced vicious anti-Israel voices such as congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. The US president held out despite his own flaws, as the man who fled from Afghanistan, handing over the keys (and weapons) to the Taliban as if the millions of women whose lives were betrayed by his doing so simply didn’t matter.
Yet now it looks increasingly like Biden – and his moral backbone – are forsaking Israel. Perhaps, having inherited such a toxic coalition, it was only a matter of time until he would bow to pressure from those advancing an anti-Israel agenda, in spite of the fact that a great deal of ordinary Americans still vocally support the Jewish state and what it stands for.
Last week saw several developments that would have been absurd if they weren’t so concerning. It was revealed by the Washington Post that Biden, in a desperate bid at appeasement, secretly apologised to figures from the Muslim community in a private meeting.
His crime? Casting doubt on the reliability of Hamas casualty figures. “I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed,” he had stated on October 25, with perfect justification, given that the source for such figures the whole world seems happy to swallow come from a barbaric group of zombie terrorists.
The outrage that followed Biden’s comment was so intense that he gave more than 30 minutes extra of the scheduled time to Muslim leaders, grovelling: “I’m sorry. I’m disappointed in myself. I will do better.”
This woeful exchange pointed to the sheer heft of the machinery that has been bearing down on the White House. Another result was a bewildering tweet last week – since retracted – appearing to indicate a possible shift in policy, in capitulation to “progressive” demands for a ceasefire. “Hamas unleashed a terrorist attack because they fear nothing more than Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace,” tweeted the President. “To continue down the path of terror, violence, killing, and war is to give Hamas what they seek. We can’t do that.”
Biden may have realised that equating Hamas’s barbarism with Israel’s entirely just response was a bit off, but that is little reassurance against the turning tide. The moral poisoning of America’s Democrats seems inexorable.
Secretary of state Anthony Blinken hasn’t been much better, last week demanding “compliance with international humanitarian law” and “a clear plan” for what comes next – as if Israel were a bunch of bloodthirsty marauders that has to be restrained. This is, of course, false – the IDF is arguably the most moral army in the world. But by issuing impossible demands on Israel, Blinken comes across as yet another statesman trying to tie the state’s hands.
It won’t work, however. “There is no way we are not going back to fighting until the end,” said Netanyahu – and indeed the country, still traumatised by the horrific crimes committed on October 7, wouldn’t want it any other way.
Nevertheless, the rot of anti-Israel thinking in the highest echelons of American Democratic politics has been in train for some time. In 2021, the Biden administration rejoined the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which has become a forum for anti-Israel sentient. Biden also indicated he would reopen a diplomatic mission in Jerusalem to Palestine.
This presidential trend was set in place by Obama, who only supported Israel through gritted teeth, and who has continued to speak in this vein since October 7. At an event in early November, as Israelis were still reeling, he went on about the evils of the Israeli “occupation” in Gaza, saying it is “unbearable”. This message was quickly promoted by those who hate Israel.
People accuse Israel of acting arrogantly, aggressively, and unilaterally. The first two are distortions. The latter has become increasingly necessary as its best and closest ally turns its back. DT.

Saturday, December 02, 2023

Let's Hear It For Coffee!

 Popular hot drink could slash your risk of Alzheimer's disease – bombshell new study.

New research suggests that coffee could do more for your brain than just wake it up.

Brilliant Justice System in Singapore; Top Economic System; Awesome Justice System With Virtually No Crime; Great Social Care; Almost No Racism in Mixed Nation; Super Education System.

The Legatum Prosperity Index ranks Singapore the best country in the world on its “health pillar”, which includes the extent to which residents “have access to the necessary services to maintain good health, including health outcomes [and] health systems”.

SO One-Sided!

Christians take issue with 'one-sided' engagement over conversion therapy ban.  (Photo: Getty/iStock) The Christian Institute (CI) h...