The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation


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?

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:


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 8:46
Hi Alan, according to research, and remember the feminist movement had a big thing about porn back in the 80's, people's consumption of porn goes from light porn to heavy porn to violent porn over a period of time. IN other words people become addicted to porn and their needs become mor extreme over time. So even light indulgence forms the thin end of a wedge.
Comment by Indoeuropean on March 3, 2011 at 6:48
@Netcon: sorry I have a Problem with this Page. My Computer goes crazy, and do Things by itself (like opening Files, formatting Posts, deleting Things. I have to switch it off and then on, but as soon as I get here, it goes mad again. I'm not an IT Expert therefore I don't know what could it be. Thank you. Have a nicest Day.)
Comment by Indoeuropean on March 3, 2011 at 6:44

@John: thanks God(dess) I quit Smoking. I anyway deleted my uncomprehensible Posts. And I'll try to re-articulate  I meant. Note: this has Nothing to do with Victorian England or another specific Culture/Place. Thank you.

[Hope this'll sound clearer.]

1. the 3 Girls in the Picture mean not Abortion [<- Pregnancy <- Sex]: as well as "half nacked" Boys do not mean it. It depends on what does one projects upon them. Islamists (just to mention ones) think that an unveiled Woman is there to be fu**ed, or raped, (which could - practically speaking - mean: Pregnancy).

2. I was wondering what do Men/Males think about giving Birth to Babies (= human Beings, alive Beings). Which is their Role in this (Which Role do Men/Males have in having/raising Babies).

[I kindly await 4 an Answer about the Subject.]

3. The drunk Girl in John's posted Comment deserve a Picture ... of drunk Boys. Here again, this means Nothing, unless one wants to say that Alcohol must be forbidden, as well as getting drunk (which is totally okay with me). Now, wanted you to say that Girls "like those" are ugly? I would reply that Ugliness is Everywhere, and it doesn't necessarely depend on Alcohol or Nudity (if it was the Case, let's forbid it?).

[Hope you get my Point.]


@Pat: you write "Abortion is bad for you (Girl/Woman)" <- you're totally Right. Infact Pregnancy affects a Woman's Body and Psyche, and it is a totally involving Experience -> Abortion is like amputate oneself.

Then: why does a Woman decide to abort (= psycho-phisically amputate herself)? Because of external Circumstances (Lack of Support, Lack of matterial Wellbeing, Violence around her, Threats, Unability of taking properly Care of a human/alive Being, ...).

[I hope you might understand this Point.]


Comment by Alan Lake on March 3, 2011 at 4:49
Just to clarify my position again: I'm not calling for a ban on porn which simply shows nudity & sex acts; its the latter plus violence, and its glorification, which I find dangerous.
And Indo, my position is symmetrical - the law would apply to the the portrayal of violent sex acts against both men and women. Alto I have a suspicion the law would be invoked more frequently on one side.
Comment by Pat McCrann on March 2, 2011 at 20:03
That's the spirit John.
Comment by John Sobieski on March 2, 2011 at 20:01

Indo - I think you have been smoking something funny - I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. If you would like to sober up and repost when you can form sentences again, I will be happy to try to discuss your points.


Pat - we were talking before about how our society has degenerated - that was all I meant! Even to us our society has lost its way - can you imagine what it looks like to a Muslim brought up in a Madras school. I believe trying to accommodate Muslims has demonstrably failed and I think they are intelligent enough to pick up on bullshit. I am with you, Pat, we need to stand up for our old english values. Victorian england did not try to accommodate but colonials were more than happy to integrate -

I don't suggest a proscriptive society but one based on duty not on "Human Rights"

Comment by Pat McCrann on March 2, 2011 at 19:32
John, good post, and abortion is an important issue in the destruction of our society, but as far as integration of Muslims is concerned I am not on the same page here. I have no intention of giving up any of my rights or freedoms, not one, for any Muslims, nor of making Britain a place they can integrate into. If they want to integrate, let them, but I ain't giving up anything.
Comment by John Sobieski on March 2, 2011 at 16:59

Hi Pat - Great to hear from you - It terrifies me how out of the best intentions such suffering and murder can be caused. I am afraid that if you look at Abortion square on - any sane person would say that it is wrong. Which will lead us to ban it - and just as we will have no choice but to create a British STASI in order to fight Islamic Sedition, so will "Back street abortions be an inevitable consequence of this legislation - we are going to have to take that on the chin.


To change our society to one that Muslims will want to integrate into - example: Victorian Britain - we are going to have to infringe on some freedoms - I can't see any choice - its either that or we carry on Ibiza style and wallow in the pit of Hell.


Check this out:




Comment by Pat McCrann on March 2, 2011 at 15:59

Someone, I forget who, said that a nation that can kill its own children is capable of anything.Until the Abortion Act of 1967 abortion was universally regarded as murder. No one campaigned for it to be made legal, except of course for the six radical feminists who pushed it through Parliament against the conscience of the people. Its most vociferous and outspoken oponents at the time were the BMA. How times have changed.

You say no one would want to go back to a time of backstreet abortion, John. Well why not? No one has to have an abortion, no one has to have casual sex, no has has to get pregnant unless they want to. What most people don't know is that before 1967 abortion was allowed if the mother's health was seriously in danger. Taht was enough.

The truth is more women die from abortion now than before 1967. When I first studied the issue in some depth, back in the early 80's, I remember reading that in England alone eight women die from legal abortions every year, and many thousands, especially young girls, lose their wombs.The number of women who commit suicide whilst pregnant is about 1%, but amongst women who've recently had an abortion the suicide rate is much higher. Basically, abortion is very bad for you.

As long as abortion is legally available women will use it as a form of contraception. Humanae Vitae predicted exactly this.

There are victims of every law. A good law means fewer victims. Many women are physically maimed by abortion, both physically and psychologically. I have friends who had abortions when we were young, over 30 years ago, and there isn't one who doesn't blub still as soon as a drink touches her lips, while still insisting 'It was the right thing to do'. Well not if you're still grieving thirty years later it's not. No baby born amounts to a tragedy. As long as sex is promoted as something which is 'free' then abortion as a convenience will continue, and innocent babies will pay the price for it. Many private abortion clinics, which are notoriously unregulated, abort babies of mature gestation on a regular basis. When a woman is pregnant today, every visit to the hospital means an invitation to abort. Murder changes people and affects their soul, so that it darkens the mind, and allows a step change between offering an abortion when required and touting an abortion before even asked for.

Anyone who supports abortion has a duty to look it square in the eye, at the brutally dismembered babies in clinic and hospital bins. We wouldn't, and don't, treat animals this way.

Thanks for the post John.

Comment by Indoeuropean on March 2, 2011 at 13:46

@Alan: I don't think our Grandparents ware all this good, since present Times are a Consequence of past Ones.

Appearently sexual Revolution of the 60s opened the Door(s) to some Perversion(s), up that Day respressed somewhere in the Psyche of People.

Remember "make Love no War"?

Appearently the same Energy that moves Sexuality, might move Violence -> either one or the other.

I personally do not understand why ... Men (there is a lot of degradating female Nude(s) out there, and I guess it is for Men/Males, not for Women/Females)

need so much degradating Nude(s) everywhere:

I might imagine that Marketing Strategists [*] just (ab)use of a Man's Need to sell their Stuff,

and Politicians [*] to achieve their Goal (keeping one addicted, and not allowing him to set free).

Actually it is not that "we're supposed to think these Things are not such a big Deal":


And hey, they [*] did a great Job.

Have a lovely Day.

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