Fred Nile, the crazy so-called Christian with the balance of power in the NSW upper house would like us all to go back a century or two.

As reported in The Guardian, Nile has his agenda laid out for himself, and firmly in his sights is the women’s right to choose.

The abortion debate was revived in NSW long after most thought it was well past its use by date by the former Coalition Attorney General Greg Smith. Smith, who was happy to cruise around the Whitsundays on a yacht with the millionaire Gazal family at the centre of ICAC hearings along with his fellow extreme religious right cohort David Clarke, attempted and failed to pass legislation known as Zoes Law which sought to classify an unborn foetus as a living being for legal purposes. This legislation brought on by the sad case of a woman who lost her unborn baby in a motor vehicle accident many saw had the potential to see murder charges brought against anyone terminating a pregnancy.

Fred Nile now tells us he wants to bring in his own version of this legislation, however he also seeks much more.

Fred Nile has said that he wants to make it law that every woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy be made to view the foetus via an ultrasound first.

Is it just me or does that seem a little over the top and at times rather cruel?

Perhaps later Nile would also like to put forward legislation that mothers should also be forced to hold their aborted foetus for three minutes?

Fred Nile is clearly either so out of touch with reality or seeks to put his own religious beliefs and dogma ahead of the welfare of not only women but also children.

Fred "I don't want to hear about common decency" Nile

Fred “I don’t want to hear about common decency” Nile

There is a saying that goes along the lines of;

“Any fool with a dick can be a dad, but it takes much more than that to be a father”

There is a similar saying for mothers, but I’m sure you get the picture.

Fred Nile however does not get the picture, not even fucking close.

I too would like to see legislation put through that puts in place some new laws, but won’t hold my breath

One law would be that Fred Nile and others of his ilk are forced to go to the crime scenes of children that have been born into horrific conditions and treated woefully by parents who couldn’t afford an abortion and only get noticed after neighbours complain about a smell and the Department Of Community Services are called in to find a baby starved to death and covered in cigarette burns that has been rotting on a urine soaked mattress for weeks.

Or perhaps a law that forces people like Fred to go and witness counselling sessions with rape victims who have been impregnated by their rapist. Force them to sit there and witness the anguish of a 15-year-old with their life in tatters after a violent attack has left them mentally scarred and suicidal. Then again someone like Fred would probably blame the skirt she was wearing before blaming the perpetrator…

Perhaps when a baby is born with an addiction to heroin, crack or ice, Fred could be there to pass on his wisdom to the child writhing and convulsing in agony for the whole three days that it remains alive. A short life of torture that Fred would rather revel in the agony of than see the hapless child spared the pain.

With modern technology we are now able to determine if a baby will be born with many of the most severe disabilities. Many of these disabilities would guarantee a life of needing 24 hour care, and inability to communicate, and the most basic of functions such as eating and going to the toilet needing help with. In these cases Fred would like to roll the dice and pray for the miracle that happens to one in a million. For those with a real heart these are not odds that are even remotely acceptable.

The man who was happy to see his Christian Democrat candidates intentionally set out to deceive and mislead voters, and is once again misleading voters with his rubber-stamp pseudo inquiry Into the Coalitions power privatisation push, has no interest in the rights of women and has no understanding or care about the concept of “quality of life”.

Fred’s only real use is that he is a fine example of why when politics and religion are mixed it doesn’t produce a good cocktail.

It only produces cocks.


Save Wixxy from his own budget crisis by donating here

Shirts Ad pic


Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

19 thoughts on “Dogma – The attack on womens rights continues unabated

  1. Well said, Peter. Fred Nile’s thinking is a symptom of an intellectual disease that is rapidly spreading throughout Australian society: the belief that commitment to an irrational ideology is more important than consideration and concern for one’s fellow beings. Dogmas of all kinds are triumphing over intelligence. or, to put it more simply, “Bull shit baffles brains.”

  2. Peter – you write “Fred Nile is clearly either so out of touch with reality or seeks to put his own religious beliefs and dogma ahead of the welfare of not only women but also children.”

    My question to you is this: if Christian beliefs are genuinely and sincerely held, then why should those beliefs not be permitted to shape and guide a person’s attitudes and actions? Of what use would be the holding of Christian convictions if those convictions are to be totally ignored? And remember, Australia does hold itself out to be (at least nominally) a Christian nation.

    It is very difficult for people without religious belief of any sort to understand, let alone accept, that persons can hold Christian values, and that such persons will make genuine efforts to live their lives according to those Christian values. And being opposed to the extinguishment of human life is as fundamental a Christian value as you can possibly get. Like Fred Nile, atheists and non-believers also seek impose their non-religious beliefs and dogma on society. The only difference is the beliefs are different and the dogma is different.

  3. Fred Nile? I thought he’d died long ago.

  4. I guess the difference is that someone like Nile seeks to change laws that impact on all parts of society. His view is that he is opposed to abortions therefore nobody should have one.

    The atheists and non-believers may say you should be able to have one, but they do not say you have to have one, only that you have an option. They are not saying I believe in abortion so every christian should have one.

    However, Fred seeks to impose his belief, whether it is genuine or not, on everyone leaving nobody with a choice, something they are amazingly quick to point out as a fault in nations with Islamic governments.

    As for opposition to the extinguishment of human life being a fundamental christian value, a flick through any history book will very quickly show otherwise, based on history I would tend to think the extinguishment of human life is more of a christian commitment given the history of massacres and ethnic cleansing etc

    For me it is about choice, those without religious agendas promote it, those with religious agendas seek to take it away

  5. Fred Nile needs to get out of politics and sit by him self in a very dark corner in a room and speak to him self . I hope nobody is voting for his policy changes.

  6. Nile’s proposal to make women see an ultrasound of their baby is stolen directly from the US. Some nutter tried to introduce this in the state of Texas but it got howled down. I hope Nile pushes this proposal, because it could very well be his undoing.

  7. Thanks Peter, a good post. Two things:
    ~What makes Nile think he has the right to tell someone else what they should do? The teachings of Jesus did not advance the notion of a dictatorship – in any form.
    ~Nile advocates the use of modern technology (ultrasounds), yet the theory that his belief rests upon (intelligent design) is not applicable here. This technology is not G*d’s design – it is man’s design.
    How does one reconcile this disparity?
    Or, can I just brutally honest and suggest to Nile that simply having a dick doesn’t make you superior to women?

  8. You advance an interesting argument, Peter, but I feel several aspects of it can, and should, be challenged.

    Your “flick through any history book” point is not a strong one. Condemning and rejecting Christian beliefs and values on the basis that some people have done terrible things (including murder and rape) in the name of Christianity does not make sense. Some husbands break their marriage vows, causing untold hurt and pain to their wives and children. Entire families have been blown apart because the men involved have behaved atrociously and betrayed those they supposedly loved. Would you therefore condemn the entire institution of marriage on the basis that some men have failed to live up to the ideals of marriage? I doubt that you, or anyone else, would sensibly do this. In similar fashion, it neither fair nor sensible to condemn and reject Christianity on the basis of the disgraceful behaviour of some Christians either now or in the past.

    You base your argument largely on the notion of “choice”. In your view, those without religious agendas promote choice whereas those with religious agendas seek to take away choice. And on this measure, Fred Nile is to be condemned because he wants to deny people a particular choice. However, it is not clear to me why Nile should be condemned for the particular choice he opposes other people having.

    The fact is every rule in our society, every law and every regulation is, in its own way, a denial of choice. Society cannot function without a system of rules, laws and regulation. A properly functioning society cannot permit untrammelled freedom of choice by the people living within it. Of necessity, some choices need to be permitted and others need to be denied. Once this proposition is accepted, the question then becomes which choices will be permitted and which will be denied? It is therefore neither fair nor sensible to condemn Fred Nile because he feels one particular choice should be denied. Or if Nile is to be condemned, then this cannot be done on the ground that he seeks to deny choice. Everyone seeks to deny choice of some kind or other. The difference is that not everyone agrees on which particular choices ought to be curtailed.

    Finally, the title of your post indicates that your argument is very much about “women’s rights”. But at no stage do you explicitly state which particular rights you are referring to. Presumably, your discussion implies you are referring to what is commonly described as the right of women to control their own bodies? And subsumed within this would be the right of women to seek, and procure, abortions.

    Anyone who argues that women have the right to control their own bodies will get no quarrel from me – but only up to a point. I agree that women have the right to control their own bodies but there is one critical proviso. The rights of women in this regard do not extend to the extinguishment of human life. Women, as well as men, do not automatically have the discretionary “right” to extinguish human life. Women or men should not have an automatic choice between extinguishing human life and not extinguishing human life. To those holding Christian beliefs and values, human life is sacrosanct. Christians hold that one cannot exercise the same choice over human life that one would exercise over, say, choosing a restaurant to eat at.

    Putting it all together, it is not clear to me why Fred Nile’s proposal should be seen as an “attack” on women’s rights. By all means criticise Nile’s proposal, and even argue against it, but do so on sensible and logical grounds. Nile’s proposal needs to be understood against the backdrop of his sincerely held Christian beliefs and values. He is not “attacking” anyone as such but is merely standing up for what he believes in. In fact, far from attacking anyone, Fred Nile is championing human life by opposing those who seek to extinguish it.

  9. I don’t understand why religious zealots wave a bible around and scream “abortion is against their god’s will” when “Numbers 5:11-31” clearly gives instructions when and why to perform an abortion. Abortion IS condoned in the bible.

  10. Christians – typically – do not have to imbue themselves with the experience of seeing human life at it’s most devastated. Peter makes the point about children being born with addictions to heroin and ice. I’ve nursed these very children. Usually, they are born prematurely, are profoundly brain damaged from the time of birth and suffer the most horrible pain that one can imagine. Invariably they die, they don’t make old bones and their short lives are characterized by misery. But Fred Nile and his ilk would never know that. They would never seek to know that. They just hold onto the embittered dogma and dictate their poisonous world view with the desire to impose it onto society. The sooner Fred himself dies, the better off we’ll all be.

  11. What gets me is the way christians reckon they hold a mortgage over what is right and true. We athiests don’t need an imaginary friend in the sky to tell us what is right and what is wrong. We can work it out for ourselves.

  12. How about anyone hiding behind some demented religion who is also male keep their brains out of the abortion debate until they themselves can be pregnant and need to make the decision to abort that pregnancy for whatever reason. Because I bet if men could get pregnant they would abort in a nano-second if it interfered with their lives.

  13. These self-righteous hypocrites really get under my skin. The truth is that they don’t really care about anybody’s welfare but their own.
    Despite the rhetoric, religion is entirely about The Self. In the end it’s your own salvation you’re striving for – nobody else’s. It’s non-negotiable and non-transferable.
    It’s the Guilt and Shame Industry at work.

    Anybody they “pick up along the way” is just a way of getting enough points to get off the “naughty list” and onto the “nice list”.

    I am yet to hear one of them say “Let the baby go full-term and I will adopt it” or “I will meet any ongoing health care bills for the life of the child”, but no – they inflict a lifetime of potential misery onto at least two people so they can go home and feel good about themselves for a job well done.

    It is the most difficult and painful decision a woman is likely to make and to inflict further needless suffering after the decision has been made is plain cruelty.

    As for Fred, I think he had better tend to his own affairs before dabbling in the lives of others. Using contrived home addresses for claiming Travel Allowance based on the donated home of a widow is a bad look for anybody, let alone a self-professed moral guardian of our society.

  14. Granny Anny – in some ways, Christians do sincerely believe they have a “mortgage” (as you so quaintly put it) over what is “right and true”. Although Christians do not claim to have all the answers, and do not claim to understand everything that goes on in the world (something that atheists delight in pointing out whenever they get the chance), the fact remains that Christian have far more answers, and can display far greater understanding, than atheists ever do, or ever can do.

    Atheists rejoice triumphantly when Christians are unable to fully answer questions such as “who created God?” or “what is the purpose of suffering?” Atheists then arrogantly condemn Christians on the basis that such questions remain unanswered, and interpret this as “proof” that Christianity is a “fairy tale”. But coming as it does from atheists, such conclusion is remarkable for its conceit and witlessness.

    Christians have the humility to admit ignorance on many matters which stands in marked contrast to the arrogance and self-righteousness of atheists. The fact is, atheists have absolutely no answers to ANY of the really big questions in life, and can offer absolutely no explanations of how and why life came, and continues, to exist. The ONLY thing atheists are good at is continually boasting about their own thoroughly bankrupt philosophy as they deride the inability of Christians of provide complete answers and explanations to the big questions in life.

    There are many things, and many purposes, in life that cannot be explained by mere human beings simply because of the limitations of the human brain. The classic example of this is the age-old question: “which came first – the chicken or the egg?” Christians are unable to answer this question, but then neither can atheists. But clearly, something had to have come first. Yet both chickens and eggs do exist in this world. The simple point of logic that apparently escapes atheists is that just because one cannot specify the purpose of, or explain, something does not mean (a) that the matter concerned lacks purpose or explanation, or (b) that the purpose or explanation will not be revealed to us at some future time.

    A very young child cannot understand the principles of thermodynamics because of the limitations of its immature brain. Yet the principles and validity of thermodynamics exist independently of the child’s understanding. But in accepting only those things they can explain or understand, and in rejecting those things they cannot explain or understand, atheists display all the hallmarks of childish thinking. In your response you proudly and angrily proclaim: “We atheists don’t need an imaginary friend in the sky to tell us what is right and what is wrong. We can work it out for ourselves.” So, and according to you, just because you and your fellow atheists cannot understand or explain a phenomenon, the phenomenon must be “imaginary”. With thinking like this I respectfully suggest that you atheists cannot, and will never, “work it out” for yourselves and that perhaps you would benefit from some Christian guidance on “what is right and what is wrong”.

  15. Marilyn – I am responding to your earlier comments on the assumption you are female. If this assumption is incorrect, then my response is significantly, but not completely, undermined.

    I have to say that I found your earlier comments to be totally sexist. Had a male dared to make similar comments about women, I am sure you would have instantly rounded on that male and told him, in no uncertain terms, how inappropriate and how offensive his remarks were. So, and as a female, what gives you the right to say such things about men?

    In any event, and putting aside the possible double standard, your argumentative diatribe lacks foundation and common sense. The fact is, and assuming they could do so, you have absolutely no idea what men might, or might not, do or how they might, or might not, act in the event of them falling pregnant. Accordingly, your silly “bet” is baseless and has to be dismissed out of hand.

    But even if, for the sake of debate, one accepts your contention that pregnant men would “abort in a nano-second” if the pregnancy interfered with their lives, how would this make men different to women? Recognised and reputable international research into the reasons why women have abortions has consistently found that well over 90 percent of abortions take place because of what could collectively be referred to as “convenience” or “lifestyle choices”. Unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, interfering with education or career plans, pressure by spouses or parents, lack of money, wrong timing and relationship problems are predominantly the main reasons women give for having abortions. Less than one percent of abortions are attributed to rape, and less than seven percent of abortions are attributed to health issues in either the mother or the foetus. As a 2004 American study found: “Almost all abortions take place because a child would be inconvenient, too expensive, or too difficult to cope with.”

    So, Marilyn, how do you justify your harsh and uncharitable view of how men would behave given the established reasons why women currently have abortions? It seems to me that the very thing you suspect men would do is already being done by women.

    Finally, your invitation that “anyone hiding behind some demented religion who is also male keep their brains out of the abortion debate until they themselves can be pregnant and need to make the decision to abort that pregnancy for whatever reason” is ridiculous in the extreme. Ignoring your offensive and unwarranted reference to “demented religion”, having a view on pregnancy and matters related to pregnancy is not a gender specific situation. Contrary to your arrogant inference, males are validly able to hold, and promote, views on pregnancy every bit as much as females are. Females do not have a monopoly here. It is totally illogical to argue that one can and should comment on anything only if one is directly involved. If this practice was adopted as a general rule, few of us would ever be able to comment on anything. One does not need to be a business owner in order to have and express an opinion on national business policy. You don’t need to be a professional chef in order to have and express an opinion on food. In similar fashion, you don’t need to be a female in order to express a sensible view on pregnancy and abortion.

  16. JB, what an arrogant, condescending person you are. Evolution explains everything. Try reading a science textbook instead of your stupid Bible.

  17. Silkworm – in a nutshell, the theory of evolution proposes that all life on this planet can ultimately be traced back to the so-called “primordial soup”. Even if this was true, one important question still remains – where did the primordial soup come from? And if your answer is “it came from nowhere”, I would then ask how is it possible to get something out of nothing? Given your emphatic reference to my “stupid Bible”, and your supremely confident claim that “evolution explains everything”, I have no doubt you can enlighten me on this issue.

  18. No, JB, I could not enlighten you. Religion has made your mind impervious to scientific thinking or even evidence. 🙁

  19. Silkworm – you write that you cannot enlighten me because religion has made my mind “impervious to scientific thinking or even evidence”. That is a shame, because I was genuinely interested in your answer to the question I asked: where did the “primordial soup” come from?

    I suspect, however, that your refusal to respond to this question has more to do with you not knowing the answer rather than any charitable desire on your part not to deal with the “impervious” mind of an inconvenient questioner. The question was, after all, reasonable and straightforward. For someone who publicly proclaims with such authority that “evolution explains everything” and who, with such emphatic disdain, publicly refers to “your stupid Bible”, I would have thought it an easy matter for you to provide even a basic intelligent and informative response to my question.

    But I guess your refusal to answer is one further example of what is so often observed in practice. An atheist who offers loud, strident public criticism of Christians and Christian belief, but who then proceeds no further. An atheist who, when questioned more closely about his/her public statements, is either unable or unwilling to explain, defend or justify his/her public position. An atheist who seems incapable of engaging in rational public discourse. And all this merely serves to reinforce the common perception that atheists generally have absolutely nothing to offer beyond their criticisms of Christians and Christian belief.

Leave a Reply