Maggie Thatcher passes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kaninchen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In fact it was the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 which amended the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (which had made abortion illegal) which first amended the law so that an abortion carried out to save the Mother would not be illegal.

*The Infant Life Preservation Act 1929
In 1929 the Infant Life Preservation Act amended the law stating it would no longer be regarded as a felony if abortion was carried out in good faith for the sole purpose of preserving the life of the mother. The Act made it illegal to kill a child ‘capable of being born live’, and enshrined 28 weeks as the age at which a fetus must be presumed to be viable. Importantly the Act allowed a doctor to perform an abortion legally if he/she was ‘satisfied that the continuance of the pregnancy was liable to endanger the health of the expectant mother’. *

.
What has all that got to do with the Private Member’s Bill which , with the support of Margaret Thatcher , became the Abortion Act of 1967 which legalised abortion ?

What has it got to do with the Thatcher Government’s legislation which amended the 1967 Act to legalise abortion to full term if the baby had a disability , or if the life of the mother was in danger , or for the vague reason “for the health of the mother” ?
 
What has all that got to do with the Private Member’s Bill which , with the support of Margaret Thatcher , became the Abortion Act of 1967 which legalised abortion ?

What has it got to do with the Thatcher Government’s legislation which amended the 1967 Act to legalise abortion to full term if the baby had a disability , or if the life of the mother was in danger , or for the vague reason “for the health of the mother” ?
I thought is was obvious that the 1929 Act set a precedent that "an abortion carried out in good faith, for the sole purpose of preserving the life of the mother, would not be an offence." This was reiterated in the 1967 Act.

The text of the Act as amended in 1990 which is still extant reads:

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—
(a)that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b)that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c)that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
(d)that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped
.

The 1990 Act is, therefore,not at all vague about the health of the woman - the provisions are very specific, and it was not a significant change from what had already exisited under previous legislation

Putting all that aside, as a Catholic, I obviously don’t agree with abortion (and I said this earlier) but as an earlier poster said, Margaret Thatcher was not a Catholic and would not look at the arguments against abortion in the way that we do. It is more shameful and disconcerting that Catholic politicians in other European Catholic counties have introduced more liberal abortion provisions.

I think a more interesting case study would be to establish how Tony Bair was received into the Catholic Church after his appalling record on abortion and experimentation on embryos.
 
Still, nice to know we can have a civilized discussion irrespective of our contrasting views. 🙂
I agree, it’s nice to engage positively, constructively and respectfully - that is the most important thing to remember as fellow Catholics 👍
 
How was she right about the Euro ?

It was the Maastricht Treaty of 7th Feb 1992 which agreed to create a single currency which became known as the Euro , although without the participation of the UK , by January 1999 .

She had been turfed out of office by her own Conservative Parliamentarians in 1990 , and it was John Major who negotiated for the UK on the Maastricht Treaty .

Another Thatcher Myth laid to rest ! 😃
Margaret Thatcher knew the single currency would devastate Europe
Another myth about the myths of Thatcher being laid to rest, laid to rest! 😛 👍
In the last weekend of October 1990, she travelled to a European summit in Rome, where Jacques Delors’ dream of European Monetary Union was high on the agenda. But while Mrs Thatcher was fighting her lone battle against the prospective single currency abroad, she was being fatally undermined at home. Geoffrey Howe, her bitterest cabinet critic, went on television to tell the interviewer Brian Walden that in principle Britain did not oppose the euro.
…Germany, forecast Thatcher, would be phobic about inflation, while the euro would prove fatal to the poorer countries because it would “devastate their inefficient economies”.
…Indeed, it is one of the tragedies of European history that the world chose not to believe her. President Mitterrand of France and Chancellor Kohl of Germany dismissed her words of caution. And when Mrs Thatcher was driven from office in 1990, a crucial voice was lost, and a new consensus started to form in Britain in favour of the euro.
You CAN be against something BEFORE it happens you know:rolleyes:
 
The 1990 Act is, therefore,not at all vague about the health of the woman - the provisions are very specific, and it was not a significant change from what had already exisited under previous legislation
Surely you are not putting the 1990 Act on an equal footing with the 1929 Act .

Between those two dates the attitudes to abortion and the practice of abortion have taken a seismic shift .

The 1967 Act also was not at all vague , but we know how it has been interpreted in the real world , leading in reality to abortion on demand .
 
May God have mercy on her soul, and may God forgive me for the feelings her memory stir in me.
I echo this.

I struggle with the feelings of anger I still have about the ruin she caused to so many ordinary working people, lives blighted. 😦
 
In the first instance I’m a Trade Unionist. Always have been always will be.
I am working class and grew up in culture where class distinction and belonging to a Trade Union was important to people. I appreciate criticism of Trade Unions is not unwarranted, but Thatcher wanted to make it illegal to belong to one at all and Trade Unions were the only voice the working classes had - particularly Irish Catholics. She succeeded in passing a law preventing certain civil servants from belonging to one. No working class Trade Unionist could support Thatcher.

Putting personal bias to the side -

Poverty rose dramatically during the Thatcher years as a consequence of her policies. Her treatment of the working classes and the poor was diabolical. Even former members of her own cabinet said that, and said it was the reason they resigned from her cabinet.

She was undemocratic and in fact a dictator. If any of her cabinet disagreed with her she got rid of them. She gets credit for being the ‘Iron Lady’ and refusing to budge. However their is time to listen to the advice of others and a time to negotiate. She wouldn’t listen to her own ministers. ministers she appointed, when they were giving her sound advice. She ignored them to the point where her own cabinet ousted her. Political commentators have suggested John Major was put forward in the hope the Tories would loose the election as another term in office would have destroyed the Tory Party - which was Thatcher’s doing. Major won the election and it did destroy the Tory Party. Not that I personally minded that having no love for the British Conservative Party, but it demonstrates what those closest to her and her one time ardent supporters really thought of her, contrary to what they are currently saying publicly.

She gerrymandered elections to stay in power and gagged the press. On one occasion Thatcher was elected to power on a 38% majority.

She said she was going to make Britain a nation of homeowners which she did. However, she then crippled homeowners with interest rates as she refused, against the advice of economists and her own cabinet, to control inflation by any means other than interest rates. Thousands of people lost their homes, the suicide rate soared, and it cost the country a fortune putting families up in B & B’s because they were homeless.

She destroyed industry and replaced it with nothing. Unemployment was at an all time high during the Thatcher years and to this day the UK has still not recovered from the Thatcher years.

She handled the hunger strike badly - further polarizing nationalists and unionists and was the cause of the escalation in violence. Had she handled it better which if she is elected PM she is supposed to be able to do, quell the situation rather than inflame it, much could have been avoided. In addition, the whole time she was saying ‘we will not negotiate with terrorists’ a senior minister was secretly engaged in discussions with the IRA which she was aware of. When the hunger strike ended I believe he was sent to Argentina.

She gets credit for the Falklands War and her role in the Gulf War. Many a soldier who served in these wars will tell you how badly the Thatcher government treated them on their return home.

I’m a nationalist I was willing to support the Anglo-Irish Agreement. However, it was a dictated peace in that she gave people here who wanted to remain British no voice on the matter. She didn’t even consult with local politicians. Unionist’s were outraged - more violence - because it was a dictated peace and they felt she had betrayed them, yet she was willing to send men to fight in the Falklands because people there wanted to remain British. At that time, Thatcher was behind in the opinion polls and it was coming up to the General Election. She may well have made the same decision had that not been the case, but I don’t think anyone can say it wasn’t an influential factor.

She destroyed the NHS and her policies on education prevented the working classes from obtaining a university education.

She destroyed communities and ‘Thatcherism’ produced a narcissistic, materialistic, self-centered generation.

She did nothing for women, or the elderly. She encouraged women to stay at home and be good mother’s, as of course she did, :rolleyes: and people who had paid into the state pension all their working lives, some who had fought for their country found themselves living on the poverty line as a consequence of her treatment of them.

The ‘brain drain’ was a consequence of ‘Thatcherism’ as the only work that was available to smart, young people was low-paid service industry jobs. One of the reasons why the UK now has a very high percentage of people over 60.

She kept income-tax down but phenomenally increased indirect taxes on every day goods and many other things, and gave big tax cuts to the rich.

There is no doubt there were people who prospered during the Thatcher years, most did not. It can be argued she strengthened the economy, but at what cost and who benefited most?
Brilliant summary of the Thatcher years, I concur with everything you have said as it echoes my own experiences and memories of living through her “reign”. I especially appreciate the mention of how badly ex-service personal were treated because I have members of my own family who suffered this.
 
Brilliant summary of the Thatcher years, I concur with everything you have said as it echoes my own experiences and memories of living through her “reign”. I especially appreciate the mention of how badly ex-service personal were treated because I have members of my own family who suffered this.
Thanks Netty.

I specifically mentioned this because in the first instance it was just plain wrong. In the second, I may be a nationalist and a trade unionist, but that does not mean I would condone injustices carried out against an individual or a group of people because they don’t share some of my views.
 
Thanks Netty.

I specifically mentioned this because in the first instance it was just plain wrong. In the second, I may be a nationalist and a trade unionist, but that does not mean I would condone injustices carried out against an individual or a group of people because they don’t share some of my views.
I read your other posts in this thread and was nodding my head in agreement.

Also, as an English woman I’d like to shake your hand because of your post below. I remember when I visited Ireland and felt very exposed every time I opened my mouth and my English accent came out. But I found only a kind welcome and friendly treatment. It made me feel very humble.
You said a great thing in my book Jacky B - one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. It depends what side of the political divide you are on.

You know, we humans really are the strangest things. I openly admit I have prejudices and certain bias. We all have certain prejudice and bias, whether we like to admit it or not. I’m not proud of them, but I have come to understand they are normal - normal for humans.

I have a terrible prejudice against the English. Recently, this prejudice shocked me because I like to think of myself as above that, in that I met an English woman and the only reason I wasn’t prepared to give her a chance and be friendly with her was simply because she was English. However, the first step in overcoming prejudice is to recognize you have it. Then, recognize there is something wrong with that and have a willingness to address it.

The first step in my path to overcoming this prejudice is when I encountered English people who felt the same way about Thatcher as I did. It prompted me to think, maybe they are not all that different and maybe we are not that far apart, and maybe there are English people who understand how we feel and we can resolve our differences in a democratic way, and without hating each other. So, maybe Thatcher did do something for peace between England and Ireland, all be it in a way she did not intend.
 
She wasn’t likable. She wasn’t sexy. She wasn’t hip. She wasn’t witty. She wasn’t compassionate. But she was strong and she was right most of the time.
And she had no heart, her way or no way, a dictator disguised as democratic, Iron lady with a cold heart of steele…eventually her own showed her the door.

I’m talking about her role as a leader, where her soul is with God is nothing to do with me, everyone needs prayers and Divine Mercy !
 
Be fair - she didn’t want the war (by all accounts, many of which have been printed in the papers over the last few days), she didn’t start the war, but Britain did have the right and duty and responsibility to defend the Falklands and prosecute the war. And because they did an immoral dictatorship was overthrown.

And she got more votes in the 3rd election than the first. Was that due to the war?
The war fell on her lap like manna from heaven, anyway enough from me on this subject, Jesus forgave the most heinous crimes against His persecutors, we have to forgive a lot less, Jesus said we have too.
 
The war fell on her lap like manna from heaven, anyway enough from me on this subject, Jesus forgave the most heinous crimes against His persecutors, we have to forgive a lot less, Jesus said we have too.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1301574.htm
Soon after news of her death was made public, Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster, president of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, issued a short statement.
“It was with sadness that we heard the news of the death of Baroness Thatcher, who served this country for many years both as a member of Parliament and as prime minster,” said Archbishop Nichols.
“We pray for the repose of her soul and for the intentions of her family and all those who now mourn for her,” he added.
Later that day, the Vatican released a telegram that Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s secretary of state, sent on behalf of Pope Francis. The telegram said the pope “was saddened to learn of the death” of Thatcher and recalled “with appreciation the Christian values which underpinned her commitment to public service and the promotion of freedom among the family of nations.” It said Pope Francis entrusted her soul to God’s mercy and assured her family and the British people of his prayers.
 
The war fell on her lap like manna from heaven.
Words of Pope John Paul II at the time of the Falklands War : The scale and horror of modern warfare , whether nuclear or not , makes it TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE as a means of settling differences between nations .
 
Words of Pope John Paul II at the time of the Falklands War : The scale and horror of modern warfare , whether nuclear or not , makes it TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE as a means of settling differences between nations .


Stanley Harbor

Yet consider these facts:

The war was BEGUN by THIS (majority Catholic!) Country:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War < Wikipedia … main facts recounted.
The Falklands War began on Friday 2 April 1982, when **Argentine forces invaded **and occupied the Falkland Islands and South Georgia.
The British government dispatched a naval task force to engage the Argentine Navy and Air Force, and retake the islands by amphibious assault. The resulting conflict lasted 74 days and ended with the Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982, which returned the islands to British control.
Margaret Thatcher’s “response” was not “warmongering”. The Falkland’s two thousand inhabitants (*the island was uninhabited until final settled by the English in the 1800s) *are almost all descendants of those settlers. They speak English, consider themselves part of the “Commonwealth” rather than an independent country … and if given a vote of which country to align itself with … would have nearly unanimously have chosen the UK. English is the official language, and MOST all the cities and towns have English names (like "The Falklands).
The secret papers also include Mrs Thatcher’s unpublished testimony to the Franks Inquiry into the conflict.
In it, she described her horror when, at the end of March 1982, she became aware that the Argentinians were about to invade.
**“I just say it was the worst, I think, moment of my life,” **she told the inquiry. **“I never, never expected the Argentines to invade the Falklands head-on.
“It was such a stupid thing to do, as events happened, such a stupid thing even to contemplate doing.”**
The Pope speaks against war as a topic when a war comes up. Predictably he tries to get all God’s children to settle their differences in a less extreme way if possible.

He didn’t favor one nation coveting another’s goods, or stealing them … in case one hadn’t considered such. Nor stated that attacked nations “turn the other cheek” and allow any hostile power to take them over. So this particular war bears a little closer scrutiny.

The US, in the midst of the Cold War, tried to be neutral … not wanting Argentina to seek help from the Soviets or Cuba. So Ronald Reagan’s public statements at the time sounded very much like the Pope’s.

mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/margaret-thatcher-blasted-ronald-reagan-1508068
Reagan Attempts Neutrality, Pleas for Peace
The files reveal how President Reagan – who shared a right-wing ideology with Mrs Thatcher – at one time pleaded with her to negotiate with the Argentinians.
As British troops closed in on final victory, he made a phone call to her at 11.30pm London time on May 31, 1982.
And he told her that the best chance for peace was “before complete Argentine humiliation”.
He added that as the UK now had the upper hand militarily “it should strike a deal now”.
The Prime Minister responded:
According to the files, Mrs Thatcher retorted: “Britain has not lost precious lives in battle and sent an enormous task force to hand over the Queen’s islands to a contact group.”
She added that as Britain had to go into the islands alone, with no outside help, she could “not now let the invader gain from his aggression”.
The Argentinian Military Government of the time (which had taken power in a military coup) referred to the islands as Las Malvinas. They had never BEEN part of Argentina formally, though the airport on the Falklands most regularly had traffic between the Falklands and Argentina. AND the islands are “closer to” Argentina than the UK. And had oil.

Rereading the Pope’s statement above, and considering the period, it looks more like
a general condemnation of “war” than one of Mrs. Thatcher.

One visiting the Falklands today would find an English speaking, long entrenched population that never displaced any island dwellers. They remain part of the UK, for as experience taught them … they could not repulse an invader on their own.

The Argentinian Army took over the whole of the islands before being cut off and beaten by the British Navy and landing troops.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
**Quick History of Settlement and Inhabitants of Falklands
**
Subsequently, from 1834 the islands were governed as a British naval station until 1840 when the British Government decided to establish a permanent colony.
A new harbour was built in Stanley, and the islands became a strategic point for navigation around Cape Horn.
A World War I naval battle, the Battle of the Falkland Islands, took place in December 1914, with a British victory over the smaller Imperial German Asiatic Fleet.
During World War II, Stanley served as a Royal Navy station and serviced ships which took part in the 1939 Battle of the River Plate.
Sovereignty over the islands again became an issue in the second half of the 20th century, when Argentina saw the creation of the United Nations as an opportunity to pursue its claim.
Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion.
A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the inhabitants preferred that the islands remain British territory. 🤷
 
Is it true that some Londoners actually BOOED as M. Thatcher’s funeral procession passed?

😦

If so, that is greatly disappointing to me. I expect better behavior - but then again, thinking of the soccer hooligans…maybe I’ve got unrealistic expectations. Just doesn’t seem classy to boo at someone’s remains.
 
Is it true that some Londoners actually BOOED as M. Thatcher’s funeral procession passed?

😦

If so, that is greatly disappointing to me. I expect better behavior - but then again, thinking of the soccer hooligans…maybe I’ve got unrealistic expectations. Just doesn’t seem classy to boo at someone’s remains.
Just wondering … were other world leaders in near proximity?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEpkkbuxdMTTbgpZQkHu39vhj1Mv59uOhHdHKvgCUaTl02zVCeoA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top