Fortunately, the Union is sensitive to the needs of "anti-choice" students. The motion has a clause assuring such neanderthal troglodytes that they will not be forced or pressured by the university to have abortions themselves.
“An official pro-choice policy would not prevent students who disagree with termination on ethical or religious grounds from exercising their right not to seek a termination.”
I feel so much better, don't you?
~
Much.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeletePlease leave a real or plausible sounding name before you post again.
And I think you need to work a little harder to convince me you're not just being a Catholic-baiting asshole here.
But I think I can answer your question briefly anyway.
It is well documented that the overwhelming number of priests who sexually abused minors and younger adults were predatory homosexuals who were using their position to groom and prey upon adolescent and young adult males. The largest demographic bump of these men appeared in the Catholic seminaries during the time when the Church was abandoning her previous rigor in weeding out homosexuals and others of unbalanced mental states. This problem has been largely turned around and the statistical number of priest-abusers has dropped accordingly.
The John Jay report found that 80.9 per cent fit the profile of homosexual men looking for pretty boys and young men. Other studies taken in Europe show much higher percentages. The problem is not the priesthood, but the lack of care in screening out those with unbalanced and undeveloped emotional lives.
The abusive priests are gay men, their victims are young men and boys. Therefore, the chances of a victim becoming pregnant are rather slim.
Surprisingly, though there has been credible research to show that the numbers of sex predators are vastly higher among teachers, there has been so little media interest. I do rather wonder what it is about Catholic priests that attracts so much hate.
Oh, did I say 'hate'... I meant stupid anti-Catholic bigotry, of course.
Furthermore, the hysterical "what about rape" shrieking is simply idiotic. I have noticed that it is commonly put forward by men seeking brownie points with feminist women they want to bed. Pro-aborts always think it is the big stumper, and expect us to hang out heads and go away in silence. In reality, however, it's the easiest one to dismantle.
Hands up everyone who supports the death penalty...
No?
What about imposing the death penalty on the children of those who commit serious crimes like rape?
Why is it only OK to kill a child *before* it is born? Abortion is quite a dangerous procedure and a lot of women are harmed by it. Punctured uterus, perforated bowels, baby body parts forgotten and left to go septic...
Much safer, don't you think, to bring the child to term, and let the woman take a look at it. If she responds by becoming upset, by "seeing the face of her rapist" as the slogan goes, we can just hand her a gun while she's still in the delivery room. Problem solved.
The "logic" of the "rape exception" is that women need abortion in cases of rape so that they don't become upset by the child reminding her of the rapist.
By that logic, we should be arming all rape victims and giving them carte blanche to shoot anyone who "reminds her of the rapist". It should be an airtight defence. "Oh, officer, I was just buying groceries and that guy I shot while he was standing at the bus stop reminded me of my rapist."
What is the thing terminated by a termination, Anon?
What is that thing in there?
Miss White, you're sexy when dismantling moral imbeciles with facts and logic. I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend, but there it is.
ReplyDeleteNow on the subject matter at hand, just wait. Sooner or later, if cretins such as Anonymous here have their way, "anti-choice" women will be prevented from exercising their right not to seek a termination. Viz. mainland China, which is run by his sort of crowd.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteNow look what you've done. You've gone and spilled the beans!
But the union makes no guarantees about students who agree with termination - will they be allowed not to seek a terminaton? Will only the mad religious types be allowed to have babies?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately Steve, the problem of coerced abortion is a big one in the US, Canada and Britain.
ReplyDeleteIndividual stories abound of young girls saying, "Well I didn't want an abortion, but my parents made me."
One of the reasons Planned Parenthood is facing defunding right now is that they like to help older men who bring their 14 year old sex slaves in for abortions by not alerting the authorities of suspected cases of statutory rape.
Recently, a court tried to order a woman with schizophrenia to both abort and be sterilised against her will.
It's called Eugenics and Planned Parenthood has been in the forefront of it for nearly a hundred years.
Heroes.
I don't understand why a student union needs to make a grand ideological statement in favour of abortion anyway. What's the point? Do the leaders get some kind of religious thrill out of it? Do they get high on the thought that they have somehow silenced people who think differently from them? It's just bizarre.
ReplyDelete--D.
Kickback?
ReplyDeleteThe thing with abortion is that the motive is usually money. I wonder what they're getting too. Or how much.
In fact, that motion included a list of stuff they are going to do to push abortion. The UCL has, essentially, turned itself into an active abortion lobby group.
And these sorts of institutions used to require that one live as celibate while studying...
ReplyDelete“An official pro-choice policy would not prevent students who disagree with termination on ethical or religious grounds from exercising their right not to seek a termination.”
ReplyDeleteAt least over here in America, 98% of college women who get pregnant have abortions. Campus services for pregnant and parenting women are virtually non-existent. The "choice" is clear: get an abortion or drop out of school. (Elite private universities are the worst: I suppose they may let you transfer your credits to another school if you chose to have and raise your baby, but the vaunted "student-friendly" atmosphere with "personal attention" does not extend to women so crass, backwards, and hillbilly as to keep their babies.)
Which is to say: I'm not really sure what "choice" there is when it's virtually impossible for a woman to continue both her pregnancies and her studies at university. One would think that someone who is "pro-choice" would work to ensure that women have actual choices, but apparently, they just mean "pro access to abortion".
~bridget
Most of the women who have abortions, even the ones who remain firmly "pro-choice" will say that they felt at the time they "had no choice". Mostly for those reasons. In our time, there should be no need whatever for a woman to feel that she must kill her child in order to continue to have a good and happy and worthwhile life.
ReplyDeleteIt is a combination of feminism, which tells women that being a mother is a worthless life, and capitalism that tells everyone they are doing nothing if they are not making a lot of money.
There are certainly enough material goods around to completely equip even the poorest woman with everything she needs for her child, and there are a lot of people who want to help. But the abortion industry doesn't want anyone undercutting their bottom line by suggesting that women receive help and support for their children and themselves.