The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

THE MOST DANGEROUS PLACE FOR A WHITE CHILD IS IN THE WOMB

During a recent debate it became apparent that we are having trouble defining exactly what "English Culture" really was. Some of us feel that there should be some kind of datum to decency. Some of us believe that we should revive the notion that England is a Christian Culture but then we have problems defining what, as Christians, we actually stand for.

 

One of things that I have seen in my life is the damage that Abortion has done to friends and relatives and it worries me that out Liberal culture tries to sell Abortion as a form of contraception and then leaves the Parents and the family to pick up the phycological pieces later. I have attached Melanie Phillips article on Abortion for your interest. 

 

Strictly speaking this has nothing to do with the fight against Islam but one of the charges that I have heard made by Islamists against our Culture is that it is decadent and evil, and despite the fact that that is a bit rich coming from a culture that thinks Murder and dismemberment is a legitimate family activity, but be that as it may - they have a point. I have kept this off the main walls as it is pretty irrelevant but I put it here in case it may interest anyone else.

 

What hope is there if doctors won't respect unborn children?

By MELANIE PHILLIPS
Last updated at 11:52 AM on 28th February 2011

 

You really do have to wonder which is the more extreme effect of our politically correct culture — the way in which it brutalises people, or the way it turns them into cerebrally-challenged automatons?

Both attributes were on startling display in the latest piece of advice to emanate from no less august a body than the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

This guidance, intended for all doctors, nurses and counsellors advising women contemplating having an abortion, said such women should be told that terminating a pregnancy was safer than having a baby.

 

 

Savage: 'It is dismaying that even doctors specialising in bringing babies into the world have succumbed to this savage reductionism'

To which one can only ask: safer for whom, precisely? Not for the baby, certainly.

 

This is not meant to be a flip comment. For the point is that these doctors seemed to have totally lost sight of some basic humanity here.

Abortion is — or should be seen as — at best, a necessary evil. Some religious people, of course, do not accept even that. They regard abortion simply as the killing of the unborn and a crime against humanity and the Almighty.

 

Although their views should be respected, the fact is that very few people would want to return to the days when abortion was illegal. Nevertheless, there is widespread and increasing disquiet about abortion — on account of both the rate at which it is occurring and the coarsening of values that it has brought in its wake.

For like so many other liberalising measures, what started as a humane response — in this case to the dangerous back-street butchery of desperate women — has turned into something quite different.

The framers of the original legislation never foresaw that abortion would turn into a routine form of contraception. But that’s what has happened.

The official figures for 2009 show that there were 189,100 abortions in England and Wales — with no fewer than 42.4 per cent of all pregnancies to women under the age of 20 ending in a termination, rising to around 60 per cent among under-16s. Indeed, from 1969, the number of abortions to girls under 20 more than quadrupled to over 40,000 in 2009.

Experts have said that although some progress has been made in reducing Britain’s world-beating rate of teenage pregnancies, abortion is increasingly being seen as the major method of contraception for many young women.

These figures are horrifying. Abortion should be a last resort. The law was framed as a balancing act between different levels of harm. The destruction of the foetus could be undertaken only if the harm to the mother of having the baby was considered too great.

This was because what was produced at conception was considered an early form of human life. And even though it was not considered to have the same status as a developed baby, it was once deemed vital to treat it with respect. To do otherwise was to devalue life itself and our common humanity.

Well, this is precisely what has taken place. That sense of balance went out of the window long ago under the pressure of ideologues screaming about ‘a woman’s right to choose’, which reframed abortion solely as concerning the interests of the mother.

It is dismaying indeed — even if not altogether surprising — that even doctors specialising in bringing babies into the world have succumbed to this savage reductionism.

Simply as a procedure, it may well be the case that having a baby is more dangerous than an abortion.

 

 

Controversial: 'Abortion should be a last resort. The law was framed as a balancing act between different levels of harm'

But to imply that having a baby is a dangerous procedure is a disreputable piece of scaremongering. It amounts to the psychological manipulation of women who are already in a vulnerable state. It is a form of bullying and a gross abuse of medical power.

Nor is that all. The guidance also says that women who are deciding whether to have an abortion must be told that most do not suffer any psychological harm from the procedure.

But rates of psychiatric illness and self-harm in women are higher among those who have had an abortion. While cause and effect cannot be proved, it defies common sense to say that there is no connection.

 

'Rates of psychiatric illness and self-harm in women are higher among those who have had an abortion'

Indeed, according to consultant psychiatrist Professor Patricia Casey, there are more than 30 studies showing an association between abortion and psychological trauma.

Moreover, this new guidance is even more extraordinary since doctors are always supposed to base their advice on the individual circumstances of every patient. Yet these are blanket guidelines for the treatment of all women considering abortion. They are, therefore, not geared to every woman’s own best interests.

They are intended rather to achieve one aim — to get all such women to have abortions.

This is by no stretch of the imagination a medical agenda but an ideological one — and a terrifyingly inhuman one at that.

It appears that, taken aback by the ferocity of the reaction to this guidance, the Royal College is now having second thoughts about the wording.

But the question remains how doctors can have lost their ethical compass so badly that they dehumanise life in this way, and dress up as ‘treatment’ the manipulation of fragile patients.

The answer is that medicine itself has been progressively brutalised under the impact of abortion.

In 1948, in the wake of the atrocities of the Nazi period, doctors subscribed to a professional oath enshrined in the Declaration of Geneva which contained this clause: ‘I will have the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception . . .’

By 1984, however, the last five words had been altered to read ‘from its beginning’ — and, in 2005, they were deleted altogether. The beginning of life had been written out of the world’s medical ethical script as just too inconvenient.

It could not be allowed to interfere with the ‘rights’ of a woman or girl, including the ‘right’ to indulge in unconstrained sexual activity. The early product of conception was thus stripped of all human value.

 

 

'The question remains how doctors can have lost their ethical compass so badly that they dehumanise life in this way'

The result of this profound cultural shift has been not only that a solemn and even tragic dilemma has been turned into an unthinking extension of ‘lifestyle choice’ which has all but destroyed the intrinsic respect for human life which defines a civilised society, it has also helped undermine childhood and exposed ever younger girls to both psychological and physical harm and exploitation.

The belief that the only harm arising from the sexual activity of young teenagers is the unfortunate consequence of a live baby has helped promote not just the normalisation of abortion, but the premature sexualisation of even very young children.

As an investigation by this paper found last week, businesses are targeting children under ten with ‘Lipstick and Limo’ parties and U.S.-influenced ‘mini-model’ fashion parades, complete with pageant-style tiaras and scaled-down catwalks, ‘pamper parties’ and cosmetic tips previously confined to the adult market.

In addition, children are being pushed by their parents to make YouTube videos in which they sing sexualised or drug-influenced pop lyrics, mimicking the provocative routines of stars like Lady Gaga and Madonna.

Treating children as if they are mini-adults in this grotesque manner illustrates once again the collapse of the understanding that adults have a duty to parent children by providing appropriate boundaries, and thus protect them from harm.

Indeed, if individual safety really were the top priority, our society would be seeking to reverse the disastrous doctrine of ‘lifestyle choice’ which has produced this rampant sexual promiscuity and catastrophic rise in teenage abortion.

But don’t expect the dehumanising automatons of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to say so.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1361285/What-hope-doctors...

 

I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has any views on what exactly "English Culture" is and how we can define it. I would be particularly interested in hearing views from other Christians who would like make sure our religion is never subverted to justify violence and hatred.

 

God Bless to all

 

John Sobieski

 

 

 

Views: 1828

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of The 4 Freedoms Library to add comments!

Comment by Pat McCrann on March 3, 2011 at 12:38

Alan said...This principle is buried in Christianity as well, of course, which is why monks and nuns talk about the joys of their life - and they are speaking truthfully....

 

This isn't so much buried in Christianity. It is the overreaching message and point of Christianity. The flesh opposes the actions of the spirit. Tame the flesh and the spirit lives.

Comment by Pat McCrann on March 3, 2011 at 12:36

I don't think it's been lost to mainstream Christianity, but it has been obscured by the most corrupted aspect of the present day church which is secular priests i.e. parish priests, most of whom, like the bishops, are radical left wingers.

And of course Christianity has a much simpler approach to all of this - which is living the life of the spirit as opposed to the life of the flesh.

Comment by Alan Lake on March 3, 2011 at 12:30

I don't think its the only way, but its the safest way, and the only way suitable for mass usage.  There are other ways, and I can put it no better than BKS Iyenagar in A Light on Yoga:

Both the good and the pleasant present themselves to men and prompt them to action.  The yogi prefers the good to the pleasant.  Others driven by their desires, prefer the pleasant to the good and miss the very purpose of life.  The yogi feels joy in what he is.  He knows how to stop and, therefore, lives in peace.  At first he chooses that which is bitter as poison, but he perseveres in his practice knowing well that in the end it will become as sweet as nectar.  Others hankering for the union of their senses with the objects of their desires, choose that which at first seems sweet as nectar, but do not know that in the end it will be as bitter as poison.

He was talking about food and exercise primarily, but it applies to all pleasures.  Its a great feeling when foods like chocolate become 'bitter as poison', and boring foods like oats or greens become the real pleasure.  The same is true of stretching or Asana.  We had our ascetics and stoics too, back in the days of the Greeks.  This principle is buried in Christianity as well, of course, which is why monks and nuns talk about the joys of their life - and they are speaking truthfully.  But its pretty much lost from mainstream Christianity now, I think.

 

By the way, when I give an opinion here, I'm normally giving the position I am prepared to defend - this is a public platform after all, and I can be challenged later on anything.  I'm generally not giving my personal preference.  So, for example, I'd find it easy to defend the banning of violent porn.  There may be a slippery slope argument around non-violent porn, but ... thats a slippery slope argument, one of the more tricky fallacies/proofs.  Its important to be pragmatic.  Its also important not to take on too much, which is why I don't have an opinion on everything, only on some things.

Comment by Pat McCrann on March 3, 2011 at 11:22

Indo said...   I'd say that there you are far too ... misogynist ... for me.
I mean: what should it mean "the Wisdom of letting our Daughters/Friends/... going out like Whores"?
Dear John: you don't let them go anywhere. They go out there by themselves, that you like or not,
and certainly not according to your Agreement or not.
Because you (Men) are not their (Women) Master(s). Neither are they your Slaves.
This happens under Islam, not in a FREE Society, in an evolving Society, which MUST (in my Opinion) look at the Future and not (nostalgically) grasp into the Past.
Otherwise this will be the End:.......

 

Women and girls are like everyone else, they do what they are taught is acceptable, and women are taught through sex ed.and the media, so they don't 'send' themselves out at all. No one is a completely autonomous being. We were a free society when we had a strict sexual morality. Indeed, we have been slaves since we lost that. And that morality is learned in the family and should be reaffirmed by the rest of society. This is not about men being the masters of women. If a mother teaches her son to respect women, is she being the master of men?

We are all sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, mothers and fathers. this is the building block of society and witout it there is no society. Sons, daughters, sisters, brothers mothers and fathers have every right to police each others' morality. We are our brother's keeper.

Comment by Indoeuropean on March 3, 2011 at 11:14

@John (Part 2):

About 60s, it was most probaby a great and right Time then.

There was the Need of a Change,

and People (Youngs) revolted.

But now it's over. Really over.

60s' Mentality is for today's Reality simply too much.

It doesn't bring Wellbalancing and Beauty anymore,

but quite at the Opposite, it brings Confusion, and Ugliness.

*

About the Causes of Perversion(s), coming from 60s (and its sexual Revolution) please refer to KidmanTV: "Kinsey's Pedophiles".

*

Women have the Right to their own (enjoyable) Sexuality.

I mean: to Erotism.

To Pleasure.

They're wether 1 Vagina and 2 Boobs (for him to enjoy), nor a Womb (for him to reproduce).

(Sorry for Clearity).

*

About Parenting, no, I don't think we should split Women and Men into Roles.

It is first of all and foremost a Matter of (here again):

RESPECT.

Not only as Males and Females, but as human Beings, Creatures.

[I just knew that Respect ethimologically mean "to look at one in a lovely Manner, with Esteem".

Apprearently THE WAY YOU LOOK AT ONE WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON HIS/HER PSYCHE, AND HE/SHE WILL BEHAVE ACCORDING TO THAT.

Good if you look at him/her in a benevolent Manner; bad if you look at him/her in a bad One.

I think the following Amulets "against evil Eye" come from that Concept ->

*

Me neither I want to live in a World

(and want our Kids living in such a World)

with no Dignity.

Anyway Islamic World doesn't represent (human, feminine, masculine) Dignity either.

*

Virtually hug you and truly wish you all the Best

(soon I'll rearticulate my uncomprehensible Sentence).

 

Comment by Indoeuropean on March 3, 2011 at 11:02

@John:

dear John, I liked your Post very much.

First of all sorry for my uncomprehensible Language and thank you for explaining me where my Problem was.

I will explain later my Point.

I wanted anyway to ... criticize ... (sorry) something you thought/said/wrote:

I quote -> "I posted the pictures that I did to call into question the wisdom of letting our Daughters, Sisters, Lovers, Friends go out like that (Whores). I was also making the point that we seem to have lost any sense of value of ourselves. Those girls do not value themselves, nor do they value the life of their children.
 
To get caught up in some Left Wing Feminist Dick Measuring is to totally miss the point.
 
To Sumarise: We don’t value ourselves and our family members = we don’t value life = the muslims are right = we deserve to live as Dhimmis.
 
Antidote= Learn to value ourselves, our culture, the dignity of our woman = learn to value life = Muslims wrong = Deport Anjim Choudray = HAPPY DAYS!!!! :-)"

I'd say that there you are far too ... misogynist ... for me.

I mean: what should it mean "the Wisdom of letting our Daughters/Friends/... going out like Whores"?

Dear John: you don't let them go anywhere. They go out there by themselves, that you like or not,

and certainly not according to your Agreement or not.

Because you (Men) are not their (Women) Master(s). Neither are they your Slaves.

This happens under Islam, not in a FREE Society, in an evolving Society, which MUST (in my Opinion) look at the Future and not (nostalgically) grasp into the Past.

Otherwise this will be the End:

*

On the other Hand, you completely got the Point:

SELF ESTEEM, SELF RESPECT.

Obviously we ecceeded with Self ciritcism, and ended up by (masochistically) think about ourselves.

"Respect for other Cultures!", "Respect for other People!", "White is out!", "Black is in!", "colonialist/imperialist Europe/West is a Shit!", "poor III. World's Countries rock!", (...)

Now: how could we, our (my) Generation (70s) develop some Self respect?

All what we learned about

(and here - again - you're Right: it was Something coming from the Left)

was to massacrate ourselves and galvanize others.

This eventually became a: Hate for our Men/Males and a Hate for our Women/Females.

Now: being one a Male, he would hate himself, and have no (inner, deep) Respect for his Females.

Being one a Female, she would hate herself, and have no (inner, deep) Respect for his Males.

*
Teach one to respect his/herself first

(and here comes the true "Culture of Me", which is not the "Culture of the Mass" we are experiencing today),

then he/she will most probably (truly, deeply, profoundly) respect others,

his/her Partner first of all.

*

And Children? They learn from their Parents,

not from their Parents' Words,

but from their Parents' concrete (living) Example.

Both inside the Home, and outside it.

Comment by Pat McCrann on March 3, 2011 at 10:49

Hi Indo, yes sexualisation is used for political purposes. The left long ago realised that the way to destroy religion is to sexualise people, and which is why our culture began falling apart at the exact moment they introduced sex ed. in schools in the late 60's, early 70's. It is also why four year olds in school are now being taught to masturbate, Yes. And if people don't know this they need to take their head out of the bucket. And yes teachers go along with this, which alone proves they are not fit to be near anyone's children.

The sexual appetite is just that: an appetite. The more you feed it the more it grows. The ONLY counter is sexual morality.

Comment by Indoeuropean on March 3, 2011 at 10:32

@Pat: you are Right. People get addicted and need more and more.

This is even (and most probably) a (sort of) political Strategy (not only a Marketing Strategy:

see -> using sexual/porno/... Images to sell a Shampoo, or a Car),

to keep People ... addicted.

To forbid them to think (with their Brains, but unconsciounsly forcing them going on "thinking with their Genitalia").

*

Not that Alan represents one who doesn't think and/or who thinks with his ***.

Maybe he manages to use the sexual Energy arisen by (so to say) sexy Images for nurishing his mental Power, his Brain.

But most of the People (Men) "thanks to Porno(graphy)" just become more bestial (similar to Animals) than they (already) are.

*

Though one cannot say/state that Pornography or erotic Images themselves are bad (or the worst).

EDUCATION comes first.

You've repressed People (...) that have no Clue about Pornography and/or Erotism,

but who treat their Partner very bad, sadistically

(not just in Bed but even and foremost outside it).

*

Then: (feminine or masculine) Nude itself should not be the main Cause of People's ... Idiocy.

*

Thank you. 

Comment by John Sobieski on March 3, 2011 at 10:13

Just for Indo:

 

Enjoy: :-)

Comment by John Sobieski on March 3, 2011 at 10:05

Hi Indo

I would respectfully suggest using sentences in order to articulate your thoughts: (the 3 Girls in the Picture mean not Abortion [<- Pregnancy <- Sex]: as well as "half nacked" Boys do not mean it) This does not form a sentence and as your points are usually really good – I find it really frustrating if I can’t understand you.

 

I can take a stab at what I think are your points but please forgive me if I am off the mark.

1. With regard to Men: When I said that society should be based on Duty and not “Rights” I meant that Men have a responsibility to a: protect woman – even if they are pissed and laying in a puddle of their own vomit.

                                  B: If a Man gets a woman pregnant he is morally and financially responsible for that 

                                           Woman and that child until the child is an adult NOT THE STATE

                                  C: If a woman says no – even if it is one of the Girls above – to have sex with her is

                                       Rape.

2. With regard to the Girl: the article by the Goddess Melenie was outlinng the fact that 48% of Girls under 20 use Abortion as the preferred method of contraception. If it was an article about drunk men I would have posted pictures of drunk men. I posted the pictures that I did to call into question the wisdom of letting our Daughters, Sisters, Lovers, Friends go out like that (Whores). I was also making the point that we seem to have lost any sense of value of ourselves. Those girls do not value themselves, nor do they value the life of their children.

 

To get caught up in some Left Wing Feminist Dick Measuring is to totally miss the point.

 

To Sumarise: We don’t value ourselves and our family members = we don’t value life = the muslims are right = we deserve to live as Dhimmis.

 

Antidote= Learn to value ourselves, our culture, the dignity of our woman = learn to value life = Muslims wrong = Deport Anjim Choudray = HAPPY DAYS!!!! :-)

 

The Left and the Feminist have had control of our societies since the 60s and they have well and TRULY ruined our culture. I for one have had enough. If they haven’t the sense to see that “Enough is Enough” then we are going to have to make them see. I don’t want to live in world where life has no Dignity.

 

Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2022   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service