Killing Babies to Improve Their Health
The Rudd government has just announced that it has overturned the ban on foreign aid funds going to abortion services. Following in the wake of the pro-death Obama administration, the Rudd government has simply slavishly followed suit.
Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said of the decision: “The Government has now completed its review and I have decided to change the Family Planning Guidelines for Australia’s overseas development assistance program to support the same range of family planning services for women in developing countries as are supported for women in Australia, subject to the national laws of the relevant nation concerned”.
Here are the closing lines of the report in the Australian: “He said Australian and international NGOs will continue to be able to choose what services they deliver in line with their own philosophies and policies. Australia will also provide additional funding of up to $15 million over four years through UN agencies and NGOs for family planning and reproductive health activities to help reduce maternal deaths. This is part of Australia’s commitment to advance the Millennium Development Goals and to improve child and maternal health.”
In case you missed it, let me repeat the last line: “This is part of Australia’s commitment to advance the Millennium Development Goals and to improve child and maternal health.” Let’s see if I got this straight: the government’s idea of improving a child’s health is to kill it. Am I missing something here?
Just how does snuffing out the life of an unborn child contribute to improving its health? Even Orwellian doublespeak could not come up with that sort of rubbish. The brave new world we live in means we can call any vice a virtue, and any virtue a vice. We can call black white and white black, and do so with a straight face.
And of course Kevin Rudd campaigned before the election in an effort to win over gullible and naive Christians. He tried to paint himself as one of us. Sorry, but anyone who thinks baby killing is compatible with biblical Christianity is not on my side. He is on the other side, end of story.
And of course inundating a nation with truckloads of contraceptives does nothing to help the health of women either. What most women – and men and children – need in poor countries are basics like food, water, shelter, and clothing. Not massive stockpiles of IUDs and Norplant.
As Senator Ron Boswell said, removing the ban will simply drain funding from these much needed life-saving services: “Which services would we have to cut in order to provide abortion services? Medicine, a village well, food, birthing kits?”
The Obama government and the Rudd government are really mirror images of each other. Both leaders were shrewd and calculating, knowing that they had to deceive ignorant evangelicals into believing that they would somehow do the right thing by them. Others of us warned that this was all smoke and mirrors.
We knew full well the records of both Rudd and Obama were hardly faith-friendly, let alone family-friendly or life-friendly. Now we are in the situation where all the warnings – which fell on so many deaf ears – are coming to pass. All the anti-life and anti-family initiatives are nicely flowing from these two governments.
The New Testament clearly warns about deception running rampant in the last days. It seems that in these two countries at least, the deception has been rolling in fast and furious. If these two men are “Christian” leaders, I hate to imagine what non-Christian leaders will be like.
50 Replies to “Killing Babies to Improve Their Health”
Bill, I have commented elsewhere that Rudd and Obama have identical political DNA making them identical politcal twins. Those Christians taken in by their lies reminds one of the parable of the wise and unwise virgins.
The Left are well organized and well networked. For example there’s an EMILY’s List in the USA and an EMILY’s List in Australia and so on throughout the Western World.
Why is it that Conservatives remain disparate and fragmented. One reason the Conservatives are easily conquered is this division. I believe the outcomes of our battles would significantly improve if we networked between ourselves much better. For example a say can be had in the results of elections whether it be Local Government, State or Federal, if a common sponsored website could be set up listing all candiates and clearly describing their pro-life or pro death views/agendas and also their membership or support of organizations such as EMILY’s List. The site then could go onto describe those organizations. How many people know what EMILY’s List is all about? It is a huge well organized and well funded feminist organization dedicated to getting pro death candidates into positions of power and influence. Hence the recent passage of the abortion bill in Victoria.
John FG McMahon
Well done Bill. Interestingly, Malaysia has reached its Millenium goals on women’s health without watering down their abortion laws and without funding any?
Who’s kidding who?
As for Rudd’s self-absolution, Pontius Pilate and Herod quickly spring to mind!
I am heart broken to hear of more deception and lies in order to push forward the death of many helpless children. I recently read an article saying that Obama will also lift the ban on funding for stem cell research saying that the government will not stand in the way of ‘good science’. This is keeping with his promise as he ran in the election, but how are we so deceived to go along with his statements claiming to be a Christian?
It would seem the same can be said for for Mr. Rudd. So what is a Christian? Where is the point of salvation? Would it be possible that either of these are not in fact Christians just living in sin, in need of a good swift kick in the pants of conviction and repentance to set them on the way of God again?
I do not claim to know the state of Mr. Obama’s heart or Mr. Rudd’s, but to rummage through the Bible and skip over the aspect of God which clearly maintains a high regard for human life (which is life at the moment of conception), one begins to wonder if he is a Christian with a set of beliefs and values, or if he has experienced the miracle of God being transformed through salvation, receiving a new heart and spirit. When this happens, suddenly we hate things we used to love, and love things we used to hate. Hate drinking, love praying. Where did this come from? It was a miracle of God.
Does someone who goes through the life changing process of salvation continue in the deceit of believing in abortion? Can pride blind you so much that you would fail to even want to see the mistakes you’ve made, the mistakes that affect an entire nation so obviously? I am not sure, but I lean towards a yes. If these two do have a relationship with God, mind you a potentially shallow one, we can pray for their relationship to be deepened, to break down the walls of pride and against the blinding of the enemy.
Or is it God’s will for these people to continue to run rampant? All sorts of questions spring to mind in talks of people ‘claiming’ to be Christians, my pride in assuming I know what a ‘real’ Christian looks like, and talks of the end days, God’s will, his sovereignty…it all seems like so much.
I guess at the end of this miniature essay (ha, oops) I pray that God’s people will rise into action, that God’s mercy on the helpless will be clear to those questioning why does He allow this, and that God will continue to give us (me) further clarity on such important issues and questions, as well as strategies for seeing God’s justice and kingdom come.
Thanks for all you do to keep us informed Bill (and everything you do within that).
Michelle Guillemaud, Alberta, Canada
As I have said ealier Bill, KRUDD ‘s faith is open to scrutiny, and this policy change is yet another example of his fair weather faith and of the cultural imperialism that generally pervades the Birth control movement.
I cringe at Rudd’s lack of character. He basically is a yes man. Not a principled leader at all.
On the Sunday evening news, Mr. Rudd is always shown leaving church. This is straight out of Yes, Prime Minister — the more radical one’s agenda, the more traditional the background against which one needs to be seen.
Rudd in response to this legislation reversal has continued the excuse of “I’m opposed to abortion but…………..” Well what would we make of a politician during WW2 who said I oppose what the Nazi’s are doing but I’ll provide the artillery to allow Hitler to carry out the total extermination of the Jews. Plain pathetic! Rudd is an absolute charlatan to even have the guts to deceive the Christian community into voting for him and we’re even bigger dills for believing him.
F. Trpimir Kešina
Toward the end of Howard’s life as PM he was the most hated man in politics. (Took about 8-9 years to happen). As for Rudd, it has only taken 1 year. I’m sure we can vote him out next election. The question remains, How much more damage will he do between now and then?
Rudd’s stand in the face of the persecution of Christians:
“When the came for the Jews, I talked climate change,
When they slaughtered the unborn, I gave an economic stimulus,
When they euthanised the elderly, I looked at the Murray-Darling basin flow,
When I was offered to choose between my faith or the Prime Minstership, I got a butler for the Lodge”
Some of my Yankee mates are getting a bit upset at Obama for mentioning “My Muslim faith” only to have the interviewer correct him.
David made a valid point when he wrote about the hatred stirred up against John Howard by the end of his term. No one is perfect, but I think John Howard was the best prime minister during my lifetime. In saying that I reveal that I was totally opposed to the introduction of the GST, but over all, considered him to be a good manager and an honest one. I wouldn’t make a similar observation, in relation to Kevin Rude. Also just think of the number of public figures, hated vigourously by the majority of the media. These public figures had or have a common thread in their philosophies. I refer to John Howard, George W. Bush, Dan Quale, Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen, Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan The common thread to be found in these political figures was that they were all pro life. This quality, particularly if found in a politician, attracts a consuming hatred of such ferosity from opponents, it is palpable. The degree of hatred is fired by a fusion of two emotions (1) The angry ones have been involved with abortion in some way and (2) apart from what they preach, these opponents of life are affected by a deep sense of guilt. As far as Kevin Rude and Barack Obama are concerned, a number of discerning observers were a wake up to both of them, but raising any queries about their incompetence and shallowness, had no effect on those who were looking for a messiah to fill that vacuum in their faith and believed they had found one in both Rude and President B.O.
Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld
Let me say with all solemnity, and with careful premeditation:
May God’s rebuke be upon those “evangelicals” who seduced the Christian community into voting for this profligate, foul-mouthed, Janus-like deceiver, Kevin.07!
I could mention names, but I won’t. I’m sure readers will know who the culprits are.
May the Lord spare our country for the sake of the righteous remnant.
So when are Christians going to stop pussyfooting around and denounce all the “Christian” lobbyists who shilled for this pro-homosexual and pro-abortion Labor leader? At best, such lobbyists were grossly lacking in discernment, so should no longer be in such positions. At worst, they are traitors to the Gospel, and must repent.
No one ever publishes my say, however I can boast 3 babies saved from the jaws of death in the past 3 months – saved from the abortion clinics. This is something that both Mr Rudd and Mr Obama may never trully understand; babies that giggle and laugh and have the cutest dimples! Babies who all have a right to be born!
Well said Bill.
Jonathan, (as always) you hit the nail on the head.
I did not see Bill’s piece until now (3am) but have been laying awake thinking about the very point you made for over an hour – I intend to do something about it.
Sen. Boswell hit the nail on the head and now we must drive it home.
As for John McMahon’s suggestion – it is not that easy John.
The Qld election campaign is just three weeks long with no warning – many candidates have no ‘record’ and trying to ascertain their positions is very difficult – time consuming and you rely on them telling the truth.
When you ask a candidate or Party for a position they couch it in different terms according to who is asking the questions.
If Christians ask the Labor party about their position on abortion they will tell you it is a concience issue.
if the feminists ask they will say it is party policy to allow abortion on demand.
That is why we, Salt Shakers, with a group of people including Bill M, work very hard to put out a Christian Values Check list before each election.
We list the party’s and tell you what their policy or voting record is – to see the one for the Qld election go to http://www.saltshakers.org.au/html/P/8/B/584/ – scroll to the bottom for the links to the actual Checklist.
Unfortunately, the social justice crowd attack us every time for not focusing on their key issues – the poor, unemployed and, at the last federal election, overseas aid.
in that election they tried to replicate our efforts with their own social justice checklist and the Greens came out top of their list!!!!
When most large evangelical churches today arer feel good centres, happy to let a nice ‘moderate’ lobby speak for them, one that and openly condemns ‘fundamentalists as red necks what chance have we fundamentalists got?
Still, in the great words of Winston Churchill, “Never, never, never, give up”.
II wonder Bill whether you would put this story up concerning Mr Edward Atkinson, a 78 year old pensioner, in ill health, who was sentenced to three months prison for sending photographs of aborted babies to a third party. The links are in chronological order, starting in 2006 and end last week, Wednesday the 4th of March. Mr Atkinson pleaded guilty to his offence but the law is being abused her to enforce a demonic ideology.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/mick_hume/article716301.ece (One way to cut waiting lists: don’t treat people with the wrong views)
http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED11%20May%202006%2022%3A01%3A03%3A113 (Pro-life pensioner to keep campaigning)
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/ ( A Danger To Society? Disabled Pensioner Jailed For Pro-life work) Please read the comments
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=8602 (Take action: please support Mr Atkinson)
Yes, Whilst the rest of us might shout from the sidelines, maybe even criticising him, he just get on with the business. Perhaps for too long we have all become too compliant, too passive and too well – behaved. In the meantime in every major western country, the massacre of the innocents is taking place on an industrial scale.
If folks could send Ted some words of encouragement the address is Mr Edward Atkinson,
Prison Number XN8846
Let us make him aware that he is not forgotten and let us shower his cell with “Well done, Ted, you faithful servant.”
David Skinner, UK
There are a number of points to address.
Firstly to Peter Stokes. Thanks for the information on that website. You and I have exchanged e-mails over the abortion issue. Your most recent e-mail to me was on Bonny Barry despatching the Gin Gin police to drive 100km to intimidate me. You may recall that I sent an e-mail to her on the abortion issue.
Secondly, any long and arduous journey must start with the first step and whilst I acknowledge that it’s not easy I’m sure that with prayer and guidance from the Holy Spirit, all Christians and Conservatives will eventually present an united front on this and related issues. It’s imperative that we do so.
My local State representative is a LNP man who is an atheist and an advocate for abortion, embryonic stem cell research etc. I have advised him and the State President of the LNP, Bruce McIver, that whilst the incumbent holds those views then I won’t be voting for the LNP in the election on 21st March next. I expect that he will be returned. After the election I will confirm my stance by e-mail to him and to Mr McIver.
To David Skinner- was Mr Atkinson’s “crime” described as “giving/causing offence by use of a carriage service” or along similar lines?
John FG McMahon
Will any party make it their policy to rescind this decision?
At least one politician has had the guts to call to account KRUDD’s actions in this matter, and I refer to Tony Abbott, who has the courage of his convictions to actually say in the press what you have been saying here Bill.
John FG McMahon, when pro-lifers claim that they do certain things in the cause, their claims are not always completely true. The Democratic Labor Party [DLP] is the most senior, most experienced, and most tenacious in the pro-life part of the spectrum, and you should ask yourself why the DLP is so often omitted or elided by pro-life officer holders and activists, not to mention the MSM.
John FG McMahon, Edward (Ted) Atkinson’s crime was to have broken his ASBO of five years. (Anti Social Behaviour Order): http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/Ted%20Atkinson%20report.pdf
ASBOs were introduced to curb the criminal behaviour of minors who because of their age could not be prosecuted by the law. Generally the recipient also wears a tag whenever they go out their home, which gives a recording of their movements. The kind of crimes the ASBOs were designed to deter are Harassment of residents or passers-by, Verbal abuse, Criminal damage, Vandalism, Noise nuisance, Writing graffiti, Engaging in threatening behaviour in large groups, Racial abuse, Smoking or drinking alcohol while under age, Substance misuse, Joyriding, Begging, Prostitution, Kerb-crawling, Throwing missiles, Assault, Vehicle crime
It is highly probably that most of the youths involved in these horrific crimes were already on ASBOs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-515995/Our-life-sentence-husband-father-brain-damaged-life-yob-kicked-head-free.html
For the youths who wear the tags they have become a badge of honour amongst their mates and break them with impunity. Neither the courts nor prisons can cope with their feral behaviour, especially since corporal punishment was made a criminal offence. Judging by the numbers of children committing major crimes in Britain, clearly the ASBOs do not work. But they can be used to intimidate any normally law- abiding person who might take it into their heads to highlight state- sanctioned evil and wickedness in society, like Ted Atkinson.
Mr Atkins pleaded guilty to sending photographs to a bedding company (too long a story) and the case was dismissed. However, he had broken his ASBO of five years and for this he received 12 weeks (probably automatically halfed to 6 as the prisons in Britain are full). Just to put his crime of causing distress to others into context, Lord Ahmed threatened the House of Lords with 10,000 Muslims if Geert Wilders came to Britain http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3344161/britain-capitulates-to-terror.thtml
He only received a 12 week prison term for killing a man, through negligent driving and that this I understand has already been reduced to 18 days: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5805123.ece
Let me also remind people that Ted Atkinson has been denied all hospital treatment from his local hospital, http://www.qehkl.nhs.uk/ unless his complaint is of a life threatening nature. He walks with difficulty on two sticks and needs a hip replacement; he also suffers from diabetes.
Recently robbers broke into his house, intimidated him but the local police gave him no support. Humanly speaking, Ted is outside the law in the old fashioned sense of the word. He is a vulnerable old man who is a threat to no one, except a corrupt judicial system and Mr Gordon Brown.
David Skinner, UK
You have no need to describe the DLP as I am very familiar with it and its aims. I was politically active in the DLP (Qld) from 1967 and the NCC as well. As to Mr Bob Santamaria and the Movement I can only say that Australians should be indeed most grateful. In Queensland here the late Mr Vince Gair was once associated with it. In fact it was my cousin Kathleen Gallogly, who passed away in May last year, who was the ALP Party Secretary who typed up and delivered the letter of expulsion to Vince Gair, the then Queensland ALP Premier. The ALP 1955 split not only split the ALP but also split families I’m afraid. If only we had dedicated young men today such as my father who was one of the foundation members of the Movement/NCC and the Industrial Groups.
I only wish the DLP resurrected here in Queensland. It is, unfortunately, restricted in its activities to Victoria.
John FG McMahon
Well, here’s part of the problem downloaded from Andrew Bolt’s (Herald Sun) blogsite:
“Not that Christian”
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 at 07:17am
Re: “I do believe that for a variety of reasons, women should have access to safely terminating a pregnancy” so said a Christian.
As a born again Christian, I prefer to describe myself as a ‘person of faith’ rather than ‘religious’. I do believe that for a variety of reasons, women should have access to safely terminating a pregnancy, however, I also believe that this should be at the bottom of a long list of options. Given the amount of sexual material in our media in the first place, why not equal attention to the consequences of sexual activity, such as unwanted pregnancy or possibly contracting STD’s? There has never been a better time in history regarding the availabilty of contaceptives, yet we still have a very high abortion rate. Any argument against use of contraceptives based on ‘religious’ conviction, need also to consider that these same religions insist that sexual relations should be between married couples only. Rather than treating abortion as a solution, how about getting serious about preventing the problem in the firt place, and so avoiding a lot of potential grief and heartache. No amount of counselling can guarantee that there won’t come a future time of regret and remorse for what might have been.
Where is the sense? of Reservoir (Reply)
Wed 11 Mar 09 (03:42pm)
John FG McMahon
Great new pro-life vdeo:
David Skinner, UK
Over at Andrew Bolt’s blog site, the debate over this rages furiously (158 main comment threads with many replies each).
One of the arguments is over-population, so I did the calculations as follows:
“The myth of over-population
World population approx 7 billion = 7.0E9
Area occupied by one person
minimum (arms by side) 0.2 sq mtrs = 2E-1
average (arms outstretched) 3 sq mtrs = 3E0
Total space occupied by population
min = 1.4E9 (7.0E9 x 2E-1)
avg = 2.1E10 (7.0E9 x 3E0)
Area of Victoria
227416 sq kms = 2.27E11 sq mtrs
The worlds population could stand with arms outstretched in a little less than 10% of the area of the State of Victoria.
The food problem is overwhelmingly a political, not a production, problem.”
and posted the above to the Bolt blog. Pedants may argue about the rounding errors, but not the scale!
Yes, the arguments for abortion based on population concerns are so much hot air, as I document in my twenty articles on the subject: https://billmuehlenberg.com/category/population-issues/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
It’s interesting that much of what Bill has been writting of late is the importance of doctrine, and yet, as Jonathan alluded to above, we have Christian lobbyists effectively promoting a vote for non-Christian doctrines such as homosexuality and abortion – or at the very least not recommending a vote AGAINST people and parties with such policies.
I became extremely concerned about the directions of the leader of one lobby group when I heard him talk about the need to ‘give’ politicians something in return for their support.
Compromise might be one thing in politics, but I do not read anywhere in the Bible where we are authorised to compromise on the Gospel.
Roger, we must not be surprised by what “christians” come out with – even our closest christian friends whom we have assumed and taken for granted were with us as opposed to being against us. I believe that we are all, including myself, in for a time of sifting to find out whether we are indeed against Christ and this will be painful.
David Skinner, UK
I remember on the election day handing out ballot papers weeping at the prospect of what lay ahead if ‘Kevin07’ became PM feeling that our great nation Australia would be infected with all sorts of policy changes not based on Godly principles for which our ancestors died for – well we are now seeing the fruit. I believe that the blame & wakeup call has to be directed at the church for being seduced by flattery. I believe the church needs to rise up and voice it’s anger that such a policy has been reversed. It is by your fruit you are known and as Christians we must align with BIBLICAL Policies!! There is something fundamentally wrong with a society that cares more for animals and trees than it does unborn beautiful innocent children.
Why are people treading on egg shells to avoid mentioning the Australian Christian Lobby?
It is time, despite the inevitable criticism, to name names in the battle for truth. ACL did not hang back when denouncing Warwick Marsh and 21 Reasons Why Gender Matters, even to the homosexual press!!!! And they have never given a detailed reason why they dumped the booklet.
I had two criticisms for the email I sent out yesterday naming names on who supported /promoted Mr Rudd, but many more endorsements.
You can’t blame the ‘world’ for the mess it is the church that is supposed to be the Salt & Light not the parliament. The parliament should be a reflection of it but that will only be if the Bible believing Christians are on the inside helping to make the laws rather than outside pointing fingers through the window – remember there are always three fingers pointing back to you.
Rudd did not betray me, I did not vote for him because I knew Labor’s position. He did not betray the social justice left of the church either – they probably support the decision!!
The betrayal was done by those who gave Mr Rudd a platform to promote his Christian crusade to deceive, and win the votes of, swinging evangelicals – and Sen Ron Boswell was the first to name and shame ACL for that and good on him. At least he is on the inside.
The DLP is standing two candidates in the upcoming Queensland Election. Colin Bishop in Pumicestone and Myself Tony Zegenhagen in Chatsworth.
I would like to call on anyone in these seats or surrounding areas. who would be prepared to work on our polling booths or provide any support on Saturday 21st March. (Election). We cannot allow similar legislation to what was introduced in Victoria last year, up here in Qld.
Please feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Tony Zegenhagen, Queensland State Secretary & Candidate for Chatsworth
Why does everything have to come back to god and his (or her for you feminists out there, or even their for those multifaceted theologians out there) wrath? if god is really all powerful, all knowing and so ultimately wise wouldn’t he understand. I mean if the abortion is already happening (and lets face it, people are going to do it regardless of fundamentalist opposition) why can’t the dead tissue be used for stem cell research? Isn’t saving a life a good thing.
As for the inevitable counter-point of killing the foetus’ in order to later do the whole saving lives thing; many cultures (because yes, there are other beliefs besides organised christianity) believe that the soul doesn’t enter the body until after the first trimester has been completed. This would imply that if the foetus is removed at this point then it is still simply a hunk a meat (granted human meat, but still meat). This argument, however, probably doesn’t sway the extreme “believers” out there – so I shall persevere.
Here’s a question; what about a woman who is raped and later finds out she is pregnant, would you then force her to go through the ordeal of giving birth to a child that she will likely hate intensely due to the memory of that child’s origin. What about the young high school girl who (and i realise that i’m already offending the notion of no sex outside of marriage with this one) has intercourse with her boyfriend, uses protection, but still finds herself pregnant. Does she then have to drop out of school and attempt to find a way to finance herself through this stressful time (which she will, in all probability, never be able to relieve herself of due to now having a lacking education), while potentially being ostracized by family and friends. Not to mention the boyfriend who would in all probability leave her because he wouldn’t want a child while he was still one himself.
But really my biggest question is who gave anyone the right to judge others? To put it in ways the christians will understand, that is god’s right and his alone. Is it not written in the bible “Let he who is without sin cast the fist stone”, and while i know none of your personally, I’m fairly sure none of you are devoid of even a little sin.
I am more than a little dissapointed with this news. I expected great things from Mr Rudd, but he has really let me down with this announcement.
Thanks Horatio (if that in fact is your name)
The case against abortion can be, and has been, made fully apart from any reference to God. So if you prefer to leave God and religion out of the issue altogether – fine, there is no problem there. I have made the case against abortion without any religious references in many places. Consider these four articles for starters:
The last one deals with your rape objection.
As to your first paragraph, with its fatalistic, “if the abortion is already happening (and lets face it, people are going to do it regardless of fundamentalist opposition)”, let me respond. One might as well argue, rape is going to happen, or genocide, or arson, so why try to stop it?
And you are wrong about “dead tissue”. Nothing is dead until scientists kill an unborn baby at around seven days in order to extract the stem cells, which then might be used to develop into tissue. But by your reasoning, I might say: let’s kill Horatio, and take his organs and give them to me – after all, they might save me. As you ask, “Isn’t saving a life a good thing”?
You might object, yeah, but I am a living human being – you can’t kill me and use me as a means to an end – even if it is a good end. Exactly. And the very same thing can be said about a human embryo. It is a living human being who has as inherent right to life, and should not be treated as a means to an end.
As to your last paragraph, do you really believe we should never judge? (Indeed, most readers would say you are passing judgment in the very remarks you make!) Let me ask you a question: if you are being beaten up by a gang of thugs, and I come along, what would you rather I do? Come to your aid and rescue you, or say, “I cannot judge these attackers. Who am I to judge?”?
And if you want to quote the Bible, then you had better quote it properly and in context. The passage you quote refers to those who were wrongly condemning the woman caught in adultery. Jesus nowhere implies taking up stones against her was wrong. He was following the procedure of Mosaic law that says a case can be dismissed when witnesses lack integrity. Thus he in effect gives permission for the stoning to begin, provided the right conditions have been met (which were not). He is in fact upholding the law here, not denying it.
Jesus is affirming the strict requirements of Old Testament justice here (according to Deut. 22:22-24 the man was also to be included in the punishment). So these men were not sin-free in this area. And at the end of the story Jesus makes this moral judgment when he says to her, “go and sin no more” (John 8:11).
But Jesus elsewhere insists that we must judge, as in John 7:24, John 9:39, etc.
And Jesus did not imply, nor should any rational person imply, that one cannot pass moral judgment unless one is perfect. We are told throughout the Bible to make moral assessments, to discern, to judge, to choose what is good and reject what is wrong. Moral judgment is a biblical virtue.
It would be ridiculous to say no one has a right to judge say, Hitler, or a rapist, or a child molester, because no one is perfect. So I am afraid you have things wrong on a number of fronts here.
Any other questions?
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I don’t believe this is an issue over judgment, I think people judge other people over choices they make with their own lives but abortion is people making choices with other people’s lives. Now the unborn baby has a right to live just as you and I do so people whether they are Christian or not disagreeing with abortion are not judging people but rather fighting for the life of a baby that deserves to live. And even if we put Christians into it with their Christian biblical worldview, we are told not to judge, and God will judge us as we judge others (Matt 7:1-6), but we are also told not to commit murder (Ex 20:13) which is what abortion is. You can’t simply call it “not murder” because of the age of the victim.
The words of Jesus in Matt. 7 are among the most misunderstood and abused in all of Scripture. See my take on the issue of judging: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2008/10/08/thou-shalt-judge/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Peter Jones said,
“I am more than a little dissapointed with this news. I expected great things from Mr Rudd, but he has really let me down with this announcement.”
Might I ask why you expected great things, Peter?
Was it that he promoted his ‘Christian credential” – without really saying what they were?
That is a major problem with listening to or reading a politicians answers to questions without rigerously questioning them or researching their Party position.
This is why we (Bill, Salt Shakers and others) work hard to produce the Christian Values Check List I mentioned in a previous blog.
We can so easily be fooled by the ‘spin’. Politicians are very good at saying what they think the listener wants to hear. Sadly, not just politicians these days but also lobbyists too.
If you had done some homework, Peter, you may not have been surprised by the Labor Party decision to spend overseas aid money with abortion providers.
Labor had a policy to support the UN Millennium Goals – those goals have consistently been interpreted to provide money to give abortion ‘advice’ and abortion services, and for throwing condoms everywhere, under the guise of ‘family planning advice’, throughout the Third World.
Also, the following is an extract from the ACL voting guide prior to the last election. The link is http://www.australiavotes.org/policies/index.php?topic_ids=3
Note the vagueness of the rather rambling question and the vagueness of the answer – which should have been challenged by ACL – but sadly they did not challenge any replies, but appear to have simply printed the political rhetoric they were given.
Australia Votes (2007)
7. Aid money and family planning: The UN does not recognise abortion as a human right but instead calls for the special protection of children before as well as after birth, and affirms the right of mothers to special care and assistance. Despite this there are moves in Parliament to divert Australia’s aid program to serve the pro-abortion agenda, by trying to overturn a ban that prevents Australian aid money being used for abortion advice, services or drugs. Would your Party maintain this ban? Please explain your reasons.
Response by Australian Labor Party:
• Improving the health of women in developing nations will be a priority of Australian aid efforts.
• Labor will increase Australia’s support of multilateral aid programs such as those run by UN agencies.
• Labor does not have any current intentions to change the rules relating to the funding of these programs.
As part of Labor’s commitment to lifting Australia’s contribution to the global Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) effort, Labor will increase Australia’s support of multilateral aid programs such as those run by UN agencies.
Labor does not have any current intentions to change the rules relating to the funding of these programs.
In the event that any review of rules relating to the funding of aid programs is conducted, this would only be done in consultation with all interested parties and with the overriding objective of improving the health of women in developing countries.
NOTE “current intentions” – means not today – If they had said “any intention” it might mean ‘not this week’!!!
The only suitable answer for Christians should have been “we will NOT be changing the rules”.
NOTE “In the event that any review of rules… is conducted”.
Who was likely to review the rules? Only them or perhaps the Greens, but the Greens could not do it without Labor government support!!!!
“this would only be done in consultation with all interested parties and with the overriding objective of improving the health of women in developing countries.”
Clearly they expected a review – they knew some in their Party wanted it.
So who did Labor consult? Pro abortion aid providers who told them their work was hampered by this restriction.
I rest my case.
Sorry this blog is so long.
I am very encouraged reading the dialogue on this page. To Bill, thank you for speaking the truth! Thank you for sticking your neck out regardless of the consequences (a trait sadly lacking in the church today).
I am in agreement with so many of the comments on this page. I was sick to my stomach when the Abortion Law Reform Bill went through in Victoria. May God have mercy on this nation of Austalia for legalising the often cruel death of little babies – babies that can not scream in pain because they have yet no air in their little lungs. Well their blood cries out from the ground and God hears their cries! We must continue to stand and fight – not just for the babies but for the mothers who are ill informed before their “procedure”. Mothers who put their hope and faith in these health “professionals”to help them, only to find they often leave the clinics much worse off than before they went in.
To Horatio – regarding your comments on rape & abortion. That is an old & tired argument. The fact is, the statistics concerning rape and abortion are very low. So are abortions for “health” reasons. The most common reason for an abortion is “social”. And I must say the old saying comes to mind that two wrongs dont make a right. Is it really ok to kill the unborn if they were conceived through rape? How does ending the life of that child who through no fault of its own was conceived through rape become ok? Do you know the statistics for women with PAS (Post Abortion Syndrome)? Abortion is not the answer to conception through rape. It is just more trauma for the mother involved. You know it IS possible for a baby to actually bring healing to such devastating circumstances. It is sad so many assume a child born in these circumstances will bring more pain and suffering – I understand to some it may be so but not always the case. Someone very close to me in my life has been through these exact circumstances. First rape at 15 yrs, then a child. She was forced by her parents to adopt the child out but grieved every day for 18 years after that for her baby.
Since then God has healed her heart. GOD is the answer, not abortion.
Bill, hopefully Christians will now realise that the Labor party hides behind a Christan mask and that Christians will show that they intend to vote Labor out of office.
Horatio you say:
“as for the inevitable counter-point of killing the foetus’ in order to later do the whole saving lives thing; many cultures (because yes, there are other beliefs besides organised Christianity) believe that the soul doesn’t enter the body until after the first trimester has been completed. This would imply that if the foetus is removed at this point then it is still simply a hunk a meat (granted human meat, but still meat).
The embryology and human fertilisation bill allows for the creation of human animal embryos to develop up until fourteen days when they are destroyed: http://www.cbc.org.uk/1kit/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=WxmOn%2BDVUMs%3D&tabid=5781&mid=10350
Why are they destroyed and not allowed to develop? Is it out of humanitarian needs? Does the embryo have the human right not be eventually born, in the same that the terminally sick are claiming the human right to euthenasia? But if a normal foetus is not recognised as being human, or as you put it a lump of meat or the produce of pregnancy, until it can support itself outside the mother’s womb at 24 weeks, why should not one of these monsters also be allowed to develop up until this point and then given the chop?
What I am saying is that by conferring some kind of human rights value on the monster embryo- even if it is to be given a mercy killing – and not on the fully normal one, they in some way have let the cat of out the bag. Deep down they recognise that human life starts at least at the very least at fourteen days.
David Skinner, UK
Dear Bill, well written and thank you for encouraging me to write to Mr Rudd. I hope you approve:
Dear Mr Rudd,
I seriously cannot believe you have done this. You claim to be a Christian and are frequently filmed leaving a church but your visits can only be for the purpose of media opportunities. With political action such as this I cannot think that you actually ever listen to God’s Holy Word.
I totally deplore this decision you have made. Perhaps you should spend time in an abortion clinic cleaning up the remains of aborted babies. Maybe you should fund more clinics for the mentally ill and visit the women whose lives have been wrecked by the regret and permanent emotional scarring resulting from destroying, sorry “terminating” their babies.
Please Mr Rudd, open your eyes, look into your heart and have the strength and courage to live out your faith in real life… not just for lip service or a media moment once a week.
Please don’t bother to reply it’s not me you will have to answer to after your retirement.
Christopher Pearson has also written on this issue in the Weekend Australian: Unlike Rudd, Costello has a moral compass
Ewan, indeed, Costello has to be far better than Chairman Rudd, but Costello has his own problems. Costello voted to legalize RU-486, the human pesticide, and he has fully swallowed global warm-mongering as revealed on The Howard Years.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane
Yes I knew that Costello voted for RU486 as did Rudd. Costello also came out strongly in favour of an Australian republic which didn’t impress me either. I didn’t see The Howard Years so didn’t know he had swallowed the green faith on AGW. Tony Abbott is probably the nearest thing to a conservative amongst the leadership contenders of the federal Liberal Party, but he’s too conservative for most of them.
Thanks Cathy… In a world of feminists whose hearts are so hardened they cannot see the truth, its a pleasure to hear from a true lady and Christian.
Thank you for fighting the good fight and may god bless you.
Tony Zegenhagen, Queensland DLP Candidate and State Secretary
To support Cathy Stoner, see the website of Rebecca Kiessling: conceived by a brutal rape, and grateful that she was not executed for her father’s crime while in her mother’s womb, and now a lawyer and home-schooling mother of five.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane
Great article Bill. A great argument revealing the false ‘Christianity’ of Rudd & Obama. I find it amazing that so many Christians are seemingly blind to all the immoral, anti-Christian policies of the current Govt. As a ‘Yes Minister’ fan I thought Michael’s comment was priceless, but also likely to be quite accurate.
Thank you for your excellent work and God bless you for it.
Ryan Foley, Melbourne.
I’m the person Cathy Stoner mentioned above. I get so tired of hearing this “excuse” for abortion. I was raped when I was 15. Gave birth 9 days before my 16th birthday. Was it ideal? No, of course not. Would I have chosen to have a baby that way ordinarily? Again, of course not. But, and here’s the truth of the matter – the damage had already been done – whether I had the baby or not, the trauma was going to be the same. Abortion creates its own trauma.. I feel much less traumatised knowing that at least my son got a chance at life, than I would have felt had I obliterated him.I get really mad when people say that a child conceived from rape will be hated by it’s mother. What a load of trash. Maybe some girls feel that way – but abortion or giving birth isn’t going to change that.
Using abortion as a cure all to save girls from the trauma of birth and the consequent decisions if faulty logic. Girls in this situation need support, love and security. They need to be told the truth. They need to know that 2 wrongs don’t make a right – that an abortion is not the “simple, painfree fix” it is made out to be. Women carry the guilt and pain of abortion for the rest of their lives. They don’t “forget”.
Getting back on topic – I sat and watched the ACL debate with K. Rudd in horror. Seeing people streaming out of Hillsong afterward all giving him the thumbs up for the interviewers made my skin crawl. My comment then was did no-one SEE? Did no-one notice that when K. Rudd was asked about his Christianity that he didn’t even ANSWER? In fact, whenever he was asked a question that was a bit edgy – he totally rerouted the conversation. And everyone there was taken in by it. I was stunned! He was asked point blank if he was a Christian – and he skirted that issue for several minutes. To my knowledge – if a person is a Christian and they are asked if they are a Christian, they have no issue in saying yes. Every time it comes to the choice of Godliness, he chooses the opposite.
If he’s a Christian, he certainly doesn’t show integrity – because what he ways he believes is never represented by his actions!
Unfortunately Australia got what the majority voted for. I think we’re going to be a LOT sorrier before his term is up.
Many thanks indeed Juliet both for your comment and for your personal testimony. Thanks for standing up for life in such a very profound and committed fashion.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I was so sad to hear the lies, justifying the death of the little children.
How can one support and destroy the unborn babies? Who gave the right to do that?
We are so reminded of Ps.139:13, God’s personal concern for the embryo begins from the time of its inception. The Psalmist says, “For Thou dist form my inward parts; Thou
did weave me in my mother’s womb. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of embryos and fetuses are deliberately aborted every year throughout the world, God cares about the unborn and takes personal knowledge of them just as truly before they are born as after their delivery.
In Jer.1: 5 is about Jeremiah, This certainly implies that God foreknew this lad even before he was conceived in his mother’s womb. Apparently we human beings have an identity in God’s mind that is established “from everlasting”- long before conception as an embryo. The verse teaches that it is God Himself who forms that fetus and governs and controls all those ‘natural’ processes that bring about the miracle of human life. God
has a definite plan and purpose for our lives, and each of us really matters to Him.
Therefore anyone who takes the life of any human beings at any stage in his life’s career will have to reckon with God.
I pray and urge everyone, rise against this ungodly, unscriptural issue of this day.