Abortion up to Birth in Britain

0:00Gentlemen, shall we just address the fact that whilst the Labour government are going around calling anyone who believes in common decency and extremist, should we just turn our eye to what the people, you know, alleging all of being extremists, are actually doing with the United Kingdom because we have here, so this is on the left, still a greasy MP, and on the right, the architect for this new, just awful, awful legislation, Tonya Antonyazzi MP for some, some wearing wails, I do believe, and both of them are mothers, which makes it even more, I think, sickening what they've actually tried to do here, and so let's just go through it with some clarity before we discuss what happened yesterday in the House of Lords, shall we? So there is a crime and policing bill that has been going through Parliament towards the end of, sorry, last year, and basically an amendment to this was put

1:03forward by Tonya over here, which basically decriminalises women acting in relation to their own pregnancies in England and Wales, so one of the things that people have been, you know, what aboutting and sort of, you know, just trying to obfuscate it all with and make it unclear as they're saying, well, actually the abortion laws in the United Kingdom are exactly the same as they simply were last week, it's all, you know, through the NHS, it's 24 weeks, which is already, you know, not good enough, but frankly, you get the point, that is what it has been, basically, since the 60s, when the abortion act of 1967 was put through, and this seemed to have been the settlement, however, due to some antagonisms about an old Victorian piece of legislation back all the way from 1861, which was the offences against the person act, this basically meant that, um, of course, women, mothers to be, were rightly visited by police investigations could be had,

2:08if they took abortion into their own hands, and all these sorts of things. Now this is, of course, not just against the very sensible Christian morality of Victorian England, but there were also real concerns here about safety, of course, not out, well, obviously for the mother of the child would already be gone at this point, but all of this is very, very dark, and really, for my own personal feelings on it isn't a conversation we should really be indulging in the United Kingdom. All of this is incredibly dark, and it's all just gotten quite a bit darker, because as we can see, the Lords have moved to decriminalize abortion up to birth. Now this is not in the sense that you are, um, as a pregnant mother going to be able to go to the NHS in the 39th week and say, I would like this, they will turn you down and say no, say that's not legal, but what it does is mean that the authorities cannot arrest you, they cannot prosecute you, and you cannot be imprisoned if you go and do this all of your own volition outside of.

3:14The law in a way, which is absolutely maddening to think about, and an invitation to have very late term abortions illegally outside the NHS, doesn't that, is that one of the side effects? Yes, it's basically giving the law a license to turn the blind eye. Essentially, so when they would say that we want abortion to be, you know, safe legal and rare, what they are doing is making it much more common, less safe and more legal. Excuse me, if they do this and they say, well, it's legal up to six months and now we're going to take it up to nine months. How is that pushing people to the black market? I'd say it's the exact opposite. Because it's very, because it decriminalizes the mother, but it doesn't decriminalize the medical practitioner. And since that's what it does. And since it's actually very impractical

4:16for a mother at, you know, week 27, 28, 30, to have an abortion herself, she would need that assistance. So she'd be able to go somewhere and get it, but claim that she did it herself, which means that it creates a demand for a black market. The other thing as well that was all very dangerous about this was that when this initial amendment passed in the House of Commons back last year, the House of Commons passed legislation back in June, despite it only having 46 minutes of debate on the issue. And so it was rushed through very much at the last minute. There was no real time for any debate on it. And obviously, it goes without saying this was entirely by design, because once such an issue is put up to debate, it would naturally require a more robust defense for it. But Baroness Monkton, who's a Tory peer in the House of Lords, did her best to come out very, very strongly against us and tabled

5:21an amendment to the bill in the Lords to remove the radical proposal, which she said was passed in the Commons without any evidence scrutiny, public consultation or impact assessment. And she argued that decriminalization actually put women in danger by removing the current legal deterrent against administering abortion away from a clinical setting right up to birth. And peers rejected the amendment, however, in a vote of 185 to 148. So just to be clear on this, when you want to make some kind of adjustment to your home, very often you'd have to get an impact assessment on what this does to bats. When you want to build any piece of infrastructure, you will spend hundreds of millions of pounds doing impact assessment studies. But when it comes to killing babies and exacerbating the fertility crisis that already exists in Britain, you do zero impact assessments. So this is the sort of madness of this sentimentalism that animates the British government and

6:30the British ruling classes, where you have to have do you concern for bats, but haven't forbid that you have do you concern for babies? Well, this is a point that I was going to bring up as well, because of course in Britain, you know, the natural disposition of the state, certainly throughout the entirety of my lifetime, has been for it to be, you know, ever expanding, for its oversight, for its jurisdiction, for its power to always be expanding and to put the private individual into more and more contact with the state as possible. However, we see that when it came to this particular issue, all of a sudden, it was well we need to make sure that everything just gets out the way so that the woman can exercise absolute sovereignty over herself, or she just takes all of this, but also so we're empowering the woman to make this decision while it's denying any sense of legal recourse against it, right? So she's simultaneously absolute agent and also has no agency whatsoever according to the way that it's all laid out.

7:35Just to sort of add one point, in the legislation that you mentioned, it was crimes against the person. So it was recognized by the Victorians in that horrendously backwards time, which it wasn't, that this is a person that you're dealing with. The baby is in fact a separate person, which we know for an absolute fact, because it has unique DNA, that is not the DNA of the mother, it is a separate person. Now that baby has been erased as a person in the law, more or less, and has zero protections, and any crime against its person is permitted. And the same baby, I think somebody Lander might have made that point on X, if it's born prematurely at 34 weeks, 35 weeks, and you kill it, obviously it's a crime, but in the womb you're still allowed to kill it up until week 39 and a half. Yeah, I was going to pull that tweet towards the end, but you're absolutely right. But the peers rejected the amendment, as I say, 185 to 148, and they also

8:41rejected another amendment that would have reintroduced in-person consultations with a medical professional before being prescribed medication-determinated pregnancy, ending the so-called pills by post scheme, because when COVID came around and everyone was locked into their homes, all of a sudden you could just do a consultation for this on the phone as well. And again, something that was raxed and rolled out under the cover of lockdown, which should never have been removed in the first place as a safeguard, is now just the status quo, which is, as it always seems to come, the Lord's, however, supported Lady Thornton's amendment to pardon women convicted of having an abortion and removed their details from police databases by 180 votes to 58. Now, one thing that I must stress, and I forgive me, I've not come with this particular point with any statistics, other than just to say the fact that, of course, this will work for in the states

9:47way for basically covering up a lot of the worst excesses of what happened with a rape gang scandal. If you're deleting all of these files based on abortions from these sorts of things, it's the way to basically hide those numbers and the impact assessment, which is really horrible. Let me ask you here, how is it hiding? Let's say if you say that the state I allow abortion, up to the ninth month, ninth month, and when this happens, it's not in the black market, you are registering it, and you can see that these things happened. How is that erasing? Because they're going to be erased from the police databases. They're going to be erased from the databases. Sorry, it's done this again. I don't know why that keeps happening. As you see, right to life here, I did quite a large write-up of many of the conversations that were happening in the House of Lords yesterday, and I do think it bears going through some of

10:51them in just some detail, so I've written a lot down. Baroness Monkton took exception to the royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' support for introducing this extreme change to the abortion law, saying that in their reasoning, the infant, who without the intervention of lethal drugs would be fully living person at that stage, if born, is completely unmentioned, and it's as if this is, in itself, unmentionable. Obviously, it's deeply distressing, as we have heard, for the mother to be questioned by the police in the aftermath of legal abortion. This should be done with compassion and sensitivity, but the police cannot act as if it hasn't happened at all, which is what it is really granting permission to do. She also went on, say, a voice of support for Baroness Strouds amendment, which would have required women to have the in-person medical appointments, I'd mentioned, and the Baroness reminded the House that she'd wanted a wand of the potential dangers of the pills by post-scheme

11:54before it was introduced, stating that these warnings now prove to be prescient. One of the examples that was given in the House of Lords was that by having the pills able to be delivered by post, what had actually happened in one particular scenario was that there was one particular mother to be very happily pregnant, ready to have her child, and someone else gained access to these pills and basically spiked with these pills, which is, of course, absolutely monstrous. And so, yes, there is a very real danger there. She continued, saying that around these abortions to take place would allow traffickers and abusers to cover up the effects of sexual exploitation by coercing their victims to phone up and ask for the pills as well, which is absolutely true. And it says, what does supporters of cause 208, which is what it is in? I think the police should do if they discover, and I apologise for the graphic nature of the words, but it is, if they're going to do this, then this is the sort of conversation it forces us to have

12:58and put forward the stark reality of it. What should the police do if they discover a dead body of a 39-week-old baby in a rubbish bin? Like, what are they supposed to do? Just not investigate it, not ask the mother, because this clause means that they can't investigate it now, because a woman is basically just acquitted of such a thing. And as you point out as well, they're asked just purely on the distinction, not over whether or not the baby could live, but simply whether or not it was already outside of the womb. And the Lord, Hogan Howe, explained in committee that investigations would often still be required, even if cause 208 past as the police would need to investigate circumstances, of course, of such full-term babies' bodies, of course, being disposed of. And sorry, this isn't the easiest thing to prevent. It's absolutely terrible. So we also have Samantha pointing out here as well, that the Archbishop of Canterbury was present

14:00at this debate, but shall we hear what she has to say? Decriminalisation of abortion is a question of such legal, moral and practical complexity, but I do believe it cannot be properly addressed in an amendment hastily added to another bill. Consideration of any alteration to the abortion laws needs public consultations and are best parliamentary processes to ensure that every aspect of this debate is carefully to consider and scrutinise. So she came out against it in the end, which is a rare example of the Church of England coming out on the right end of an issue, but her framing is, of course, I feel wrong, certainly for someone who is supposed to be of faith, the idea that it's a complex issue when, surely, it should be quite a black and white issue, but she is absolutely right in saying that, of course, this was not an actual abortion bill

15:00that was put forward. This was merely an amendment to a criminality bill, and, of course, it is being used by the most progressive voices in Parliament to, of course, smuggle in an agenda that is entirely without consent. Alison Pearson, as she points out here, says abortion term, women, it's 12 weeks, Germany, Italy, Greece, Denmark, Austria, 14 weeks, France, Spain, and now 24 weeks plus no penalty for a mother aborting up to full term Britain, vying for the infant side cup with the people's Republic of China. And again, just so we're not getting abstract about this, this isn't just words, you know, this is, this is life, this is the most precious thing that we humans can hold to, and this is a 34-year-old, sorry, 34-week-week baby outside of the womb, and as you can tell, it's absolutely confident, and it has its entire life ahead of them, it's strong enough to live, and this is a story of basically every life that never got a chance

16:06to happen across the West. It's a deeply terrible thing, and the reason that I put in this part from the House of Lords as well, and it being banned, you know, the hereditary peers are basically going to be abolished. Now, this is not something I want to spend too long on, it warrants really an entire segment in and of itself, so I'll probably come back to you on Tuesday to talk about this, but one of the reasons that I wanted to bring this up here and now is not just because the House of Lords have put through legislation that we've just been talking about, but also because look at the way that the cabinet office frames this. This morning, 700-year-old system of hereditary membership in the House of Lords was abolished. A abolished membership is now earned through public service and merit, not granted by an inheritance. It's like, okay, but does that make the legislation more moral? Does it make it more, does it make it more democratic? Does it matter when the House of

17:06Lords are putting through legislation that is only supported by 1% of the British public? How can this possibly be right? This wasn't in Labour's manifesto, they had no right to do this, no licence to do this, no mandate to do this, and no wonder they didn't put it in the manifesto, because of course they knew what the answer would be, and quite right, as to reiterate, the point as Landis says for us, if a baby born one month prematurely and I suffocate it, that is murder, however a mother can now abort her child at eight months in the United Kingdom and face no legal consequences. This was passed as law, despite only 1% of the public supporting it, is this really democracy? Well, of course it isn't. A point about the House of Lords. Chesterchin said that tradition is the most important form of democracy because it is the democracy of the dead, that the past generations who had experienced so many things and so many horrors

18:07and so much and gained from them so much wisdom passed down tradition, and that tradition is democratic because it encapsulates the wisdom of a nation and he called it the democracy of the dead as well as the living, and in his view that is what true democracy is, you respect tradition. So these guys are attacking the past and they're attacking the future at the same time, forcing everybody into the eternal present, every day is day zero, every year is year zero, and this is madness, this is purely destructive. I think that Chesterchin is committing a category error there because tradition is 99% subconscious. It's not something we think about, it's something we do without thinking about it, whereas democracy is conscious decision-making. You can make horrible decisions, you can make good decisions, but they're conscious ones.

19:08So I think that in, I mean, whether it's democratic or not doesn't mean it's right. No, well, if it were a democratic process, it would have to be sort of a sort of referendum or something because this is not the kind of, we are living in a situation where lots of parties have an agenda, and people are choosing every four or five years in other countries about overall agendas, but within these overall agendas, they can smuggle in policies that are incredibly unpopular and in their respect, and democratic or not. Until I do this every week now. Yes, that's an issue, and you could say that it's, it's, yeah, it's just... No, I take care of my train of work. That's right, I take your point, and so... That's my point, it's just that they are smuggling lots of things that we don't know whether people want

20:10or not, but even if they want them, it doesn't make them right. It doesn't make them wrong, necessarily, but what people want and what they decide based on what they want is not the creditor of us. Well, exactly, just because the House of Commons voted through some radically progressive legislation that we know is totally out of whack with the sensibilities of the British public, and it's been passed now by the House of Lords, it's gone through all the proper official channels. That doesn't mean that all of a sudden it's a good decision or a moral decision. It's legalised murder at the end of the day, and you can see here that it's an absolutely mind-blowing figure of almost 10 million babies lost to abortion since the original UK abortion act came into effect back in 1968, and just to put that in clear figures for you as well, it is about 10 million people, foreigners that have arrived here since Tony Blair took power,

21:12you know, back in 1997. So we talk about the fact that, oh, we don't have enough people, and, you know, we've gotten our birth rate replacement is too low. It's like only because we're constantly, as you say, pinning ourselves between eradicating our past, eradicating our future, and then just bringing in a whole supply of foreigners who bring innumerable problems, as we chronicle here, all the time on the podcast. And so this entire thing is just such a deeply dark affair, and this is not even me saying that, you know, in situations of rape, but this is not me being categorical about the entire issue, but this is me saying that this is clearly too much, should never have been given license, and I think that stuff like this doesn't get forgotten. And when some people with more sensible morals come to power, hopefully a lot of this can

22:17start to be, you know, fixed.