Million year old baby

Babies are millions of years old

Babies are millions of years old

While in America a few weeks ago I listened to the talk radio stations. Without exception the shows I listened to were hosted by fanatics who condemned their opponents as not only wrong but intentionally evil. On one side the U.S. Government were conniving with BP to enrich themselves while deliberately destroying the environment. Another side blamed the liberals for deliberately lying about climate change in order to destroy the American way and allow other countries to impinge on America sovereignty. The abortion debate is one of the most acrimonious. Fiendish liberals murder babies while tyrannical misogynists seek to inflict back street abortions on young women.

Over the years British politics seems to be becoming similar to that of America. (All this dull witted talk of “progressive politics” is an American import). Listening to LBC radio this morning one guy was claiming that the Tories are a party obsessed with making the rich richer while Labour are portrayed as wanting to destroy industry.

When one tries to argue (as reasonably as one can) against one of the extreme views one is immediately cast as representing the opposite extreme view. When I blogged about the gross incompetence of the New Labour government I was branded as a racist an a fascist. If I complain about the corruption of the corporate world I am branded a communist.

Let me explain something to all extremists: You are all TALKING BOLLOCKS!

Most argument are not straight black and white and most people are capable of understanding that both sides in most debates have valid arguments and that decisions must be taken which attempt to ameliorate the downside of both arguments while accentuating the good. So why do the politicians insist on playing these idiotic games of simplifying arguments to a level that only an imbecile would agree with?

Take the abortion debate for example. One side believes that life begins at conception and that it is always wrong to take life. The other side believes that a woman’s body is her own to do with as she wishes so if she wants an abortion she should have one.

Both are Talking Bollocks!

Firstly it is ridiculous to say that life begins at conception. A sperm is alive and an egg is alive. Life is a continuum. One unappreciated fact about the human race is that we are all one continuous stream of life going back thousands, if not, millions of years. Its amazing! It fantastic! Its a far bigger idea than a man with a beard who did everything and it means that a new born baby is a million years old! – Cool!

Listen to Unbroken Chain by the Grateful Dead which, I’m told, is inspired by this idea.

Secondly yes, a woman’s body is her own to do with as she wishes but at some point one has to realise that she is carrying a child. What are you going to do, allow abortion up to 1 minute before delivery? At this point the accusation is usually this is unfair as I am a man and therefore will never be put in this position. Sorry, I know it’s unfair but it’s  still true.

As I said, these are the two extremes but anyone with any intelligence can see that there is validity in both arguments and this is what I find so annoying: That the bellicose  imbeciles who insist on inflicting their bigoted opinions upon us refuse to even acknowledge the obvious truth in their opponents arguments. Yes life should be treated as sacred but yes a woman should have control of her own body so the law should probably be something like that which we have at the moment: Not “abortion on demand” but limited according to strict criteria.

Immigration is another debate where our politicians behave like hooligans. Yes, the United Kingdom is crowded and our resources are over stretched but no, it’s not true that we should  judge people by their race or religion. (Whatever race is supposed to mean – I thought there was only one race, the human race – I thought that most of your also worshipped the same God so I don’t know why you bicker about minor implementation differences). So when one politicians argues against immigration he is not necessarily a fascists and another argues in favour of immigration they are not necessarily hell bent on destroying British culture. My personal view is that the racists debate has become so stylised and dangerous that prejudice is rampant on both sides of the debate.

One reason I support the current coalition government (so far) is that it is trying to run more heterogeneous politics. It is OK to have opposing views on some issues while agreeing and proceeding on others. In the end every member of the House of Commons is allowed to vote on a bill so if enough MPs (Tory, Liberal or Labour) oppose the bill it wont get through.

What we require from politicians is an end to the mindless demonising of their opponents and reasoned, intelligent debate culminating in a vote where the decision is accepted by all.

Democracy, I think it’s called.

3 thoughts on “Million year old baby

  1. I certainly hope your political system is not becoming like the that of the U.S. Pity to you if it does.

    Currently in America, government is essentially owned by big business, which is the major source of funding for the campaigns of politicians. Unless a candidate has enormous personal resources, he will always be outspent by a candidate with wide corporate support. With this corporate funding, the candidate puts out attack ads and scare tactics on our televisions and radio stations in which they reduce their arguments to emotional gut level simplicities. Fear tactics are particularly useful. I have been told that my President is a communist, a fascist, a Muslim extremist and a “dumbass”. In fact, he is a pragmatist and far more middle of the road than his detractors would dare admit.

    The problem with corporate sponsorship of election advertising is that those elected are then beholden to the corporations that put them in office. In case they forget, there are aggressive teams of highly paid lobbyists that will remind them at every turn. As I’ve posted elsewhere on this site, there have been documented cases in which lobbyists have actually written the text of bills that weere argued in congress. Corporate lobbyists are writing our laws!

    By the way, the talk hosts you listened to in America are employed by media groups that are just another blindly pro-business entity as insidious as oil or tobacco companies. If you listen to a number of different talk hosts in a single day, you’ll hear them all using the same words, creating idiotic sound bites for their numbskull audiences to regurgitate loudly and self-righteously at my kid’s soccer game.

    Please look elsewhere for inspiration. The U.S. governmnet has been taken over by special interests.

  2. The argument for choice in whether to have the baby or a termination runs thus: every child should be a wanted child, and every mother a willing mother. No-one is asking for the right to have an abortion up to one minute before the birth; rather up to a sensible time limit that enables all those who may need a late abortion, to have one. These include young women terrified of telling their parents, women from Northern Ireland who still have to travel to mainland UK for an abortion, older women who mistake the early signs of pregnancy for the menopause, women with learning difficulties or psychiatric illnesses who may not realise what’s happening, etc etc.

    Pro Choice advocates, who can be men and women, differ from anti abortionists in that they don’t want to force their choice on anybody of differing views. Anti abortionists, however, most definitely want to stop women exercising their choice to have a termination if that is what the woman decides is the most appropriate action for them at that time. Curiously, many anti abortionists will do their utmost to persuade and prevent women from having abortions, and then carry on to abuse the often resulting ‘single mums’.

  3. Great point, Mary Smith! Yes, pro-life advocates, as we call them here, are generally the same people who vociferously condemn government entitlements to single mothers. They would prefer, one assumes, that the child is birthed and then given up for adoption.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s