‘Johnny Hudson was born September 30, 1977 without arms, his left leg, and half of his right leg. His right foot was where the knee would be. After he was born, the doctors took him away and recommended his parents sign him over to the state as he would not live a ‘normal’ life. Instead, his parents kept him and raised him.
His parents raised him no different than his older sister, Rebecca. Despite the opinions of the doctors, by age 4, he was picking up skills like taking notes and flipping through a book with his foot. God even gave him the ability to climb up the stairs.
God did the greatest work in Johnny’s life on October 4, 1995. During a week-long revival, Johnny accepted Christ as his personal Saviour, and surrendered to preach God’s Word.’ https://www.familybiblemd.com/our-pastor
‘According to the moderns, millennials, and malevolent, evil does not exist anymore. More subtlety and confusingly, they call good evil and evil good, and God warned us about that. He said, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil…”
The Homosexual Lobby has belittled, bullied, badgered, and blackmailed non-thinking Americans and Canadians into accepting, approving, and even applauding their deadly homosexual lifestyle. We are expected to believe it is only an alternative lifestyle. You know, you love one way. I love another. It’s still love and who can deny, debate, and denigrate love? However, it is “love that dare not speak its name.” It is so vile that decent people did not even discuss it in polite society until recent years.
Today, because of the successful con job by homosexuals, America has developed an infatuation with the rude, the crude, and the lewd; however, average citizens are waking up and speaking out in defense of centuries of common sense and Bible teaching. Astute people don’t (with the wave of the hand) turn their backs on thousands of years of civilization.
We are striking back and hitting pro-homosexual firms in their cash register. As Christians, we will turn the other cheek but not write another check to support evil. It is not very smart to fund your own demise. We don’t tip the executioner to use a sharp ax to expedite a clean cut of our neck as some did in centuries past.
I don’t drink Coke or eat Girl Scout cookies watching professional sports. I hope you will do likewise. Anyway, that kind of stuff might send you to Heaven quicker than your scheduled departure. I will survive not reading National Geographic after they promoted transgenderism; besides, they still haven’t heard that evolution is false, a failure, and a fraud. Another reason they should shut down their presses and quietly disappear. Moreover, we can survive very well without rushing to get Target’s weekend specials. Furthermore, I would not go to Disney if the entrance fee were a dollar.
I think it is more than a dollar.
I am sure many people who don’t identify with Bible-believing Christians will also get involved with boycotting Target, Disney, Proctor and Gamble, etc. No doubt, we will pick up a few stray nuts and others who loaf on the fringe of every group, but we will have to live with that. I am willing to admit that not all the nuts are in the Homosexual Lobby. Some are in the church lobby, carry a Bible, and wear a silly grin—and maybe a silver cross around the neck. For sure, not all nuts are on trees. No doubt, some of the Repulsive Radical Religious Right will get involved. However, we will disavow them with the understanding that it is still not illegal to be a religious nut in America—until they start mixing the Kool-Aid.
If Christians are silent, where will the pressure come from to do right? Some tell us that boycotts are ineffective, and when they fail, it only makes us look foolish. However, my boycotts always succeed because I know they are not living on my dollar. Nevertheless, I’d rather be perceived as a fool and a failure than a follower of the wrong side in this cultural war.
Christians have a responsibility to live daily lives so that those around us will know we do not support evil causes. We are in a war, and except for the final outcome, no one is guaranteed to be on the winning side of every battle. One thing for sure, I don’t want to be on the sinning side! Wars of principle must be fought even if there are battle loses; moreover, there have been some very successful boycotts by pro-family groups.
Target officials met with American Family Association leaders that produced a friendly but flawed, final, and fatal conclusion: Target will continue its insane, insensitive, and indecent policy of permitting make-believe women in real women’s restrooms and changing rooms! Target sees it as noble to provide admittance to restrooms for men who pretend to be women, and real women must live with it. Target officials are unconcerned with safety, privacy, and decency. Making people feel good is preferred over women’s safety!
The loonies have taken over. Such a business deserves to go belly up, and other companies—toying with twisted tolerance—may get the message that a gold star from the LGBT crowd is not worth going bankrupt.
The Target boycott should be permanent and stopped only after its burial. I won’t stop my boycott with rumors of its funeral, and after all, I believe in resurrection.
Christians are commanded to be salt and light in this world. The function of salt is mainly negative since it prevents decay, while the function of light is positive. Light always, without exception, drives away the darkness. Christians are failing this generation by not being the preserving salt and the prevailing light. Consequently, Americans are asking, “Where am I going in this handbasket?”
I think I know America’s destination.
As a Christian, everything I have belongs to God. I am a steward of all I possess and will one day give an account to God of how I used His resources. If the culture wars are won by the permissive crowd, it will change America forever. It will mean the killing of more innocent babies. It will mean general acceptance of immoral behavior that will destroy lives, damage our healthcare system, and deny Christians the right to express their faith in the marketplace. I refuse to leave such a society to my grandchildren without taking a stand–even if I fail.
We live in a society that refuses to recognize right from wrong; consequently, we must choose the right and oppose the wrong. However, opponents tell us that right and wrong cannot be established but are arbitrary. To those people, the Bible is not a guide for human behavior. After all, it condemns most people’s lifestyles; so shallow people think by not believing the Bible, they are free from its condemnation. The message from the media and many weaklings in the clergy is that God is dead, morality is irrelevant, and perversion is in everyone’s future. So, why fight it?
I choose to fight.
We will also have to live with some in the Christian community who will oppose our activities as being unchristian, unwise, and unnecessary. Furthermore, some asinine critics will use the Bible (which they don’t believe is trustworthy!) to tell us we are wrong! It is a misuse of English to call religious leaders leaders if they don’t lead! Usually, they are weaklings masquerading as leaders. Most Christians want a leader with hair on his chest, a working brain in his head, an understanding heart in his bosom, and a stiff bone in his back. Most loosey-goosey, effervescent Evangelicals are missing all four but do have a small yellow streak up their backs where a spine should be.
Astute, awake, and alarmed Christians will no longer be kicked around without expressing outrage by withholding our credit cards and cash. You remember cash; it’s a four-letter word not used much anymore.
Each person can use his influence to encourage others to apply pressure, kindly, of course. So business owners take note that Christians have learned something from Blacks, feminists, homosexuals, Hispanics, socialists, and others. We will be heard and will stop funding businessmen who kick us around as they accept our money; however, at the same time, we will never be unkind, unruly, untruthful, or unchristian—which includes attacking, looting, and burning.
When the next business owner decides to dance with the dandies of the LGBT lobby, we will not harass the business or try to force anyone to get involved. However, I will remind them that Target’s distress, decline, if not demise, was self-inflicted.
Don’t be neutral during the biggest battle America faces. Take a stand. Win or lose, I would rather lose standing with the right crowd than win standing with the wrong crowd. By doing the right thing, I will, in the end, be on the winning side.
In the Australian ‘A Queensland IVF clinic receives two to three inquiries about gender selection every week, and some patients report killing their 10-week-old preborn baby after a blood test revealed the baby was the “wrong sex”.
Queensland Fertility Group director Dr David Molloy said that dozens of IVF patients support his legal push for IVF gender-selection, in a legal framework that already permits genetic-based abortion.
“I think couples come to me because they know I have always been an advocate of gender selection, but the National Health and Medical Research Council upheld the ban on non-medical gender selection in its 2017 review,” Dr Molloy told The Courier Mail on March 7.
“This move disappointed a lot of Queenslanders and we are still lobbying for change,” he said.
Part of Dr Molloy’s legal argument for change is that parents who have an “all-consuming desire” for a boy or a girl can become so disappointed with the outcome that they end up in psychiatric care.
“I have seen hundreds of patients who are disappointed when they hear of the gender of the child they are expecting but it doesn’t mean they don’t adore the baby when it arrives. For most, the disappointment passes quickly. Sadly though, I do see some who end up broken and in psychiatric care,” he said.
FamilyVoice Australia spokesman Darryl Budge says that sex-selection abortion is a further attack on the sanctity of life.
“All Australian states have legalised abortion that is allegedly justified for the mother’s mental health or because tests on the baby point to an unwanted disease or abnormality,” Darryl Budge said.
“This legally translates to the erasure of a preborn baby’s right to life by the mother’s own preference for her quality of life.”
Mr Budge commended that Queensland LNP MP George Christensen, who addressed a FamilyVoice webinar on March 8 regarding his Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021, had expressed the need for legislation to protect children born alive after abortion, and his desire to prevent gender-based abortions.’https://familyvoice.org.au/news/wrong-sex-pre-born-babies-killed
Their latest attack against Christians is the fact that many of us refuse to get jabbed with an experimental vaccine for a virus with a 99% survival rate among the vast majority of the population.
Risks aside, Christians also face a moral dilemma with regard to the fact that “fetal-cell lines played a vital role in the development of all three vaccines.” Perhaps this is why the vaccine, like abortion, has become a de facto religious ceremony for the followers of the demonic critical theory religion that is sweeping Western society.
Do you remember anyone ever virtue signaling online about getting a flu shot in the past? I sure don’t. Suddenly it’s “cool” and “hip” to let the entire world know about your medical history as a sign of your commitment to the “cause” of oligarchic tyranny.
How utterly stupid and foolish.
In other news: half of Americans support a “vaccine passport,” which means our society is rapidly fragmenting into two distinct economies: the economy of sane and rational people who do not want an experimental vaccine injected into their body and those who handed over their bodily autonomy as a science experiment so things could “go back to normal.” Newsflash: things are never going back to normal, just like they didn’t after 9/11.
This is one of the many reasons I have been pushing Christians to start building our own economy separate from all of this madness. Soon enough, we won’t have any other choice.
Ultimately the Oligarchs in power want us all worshipping the State, “stuff,” and “science” as god. God Almighty gets in the way of that. They want us enslaved to sin to become even more spineless, docile, complacent, and obedient pigs. Christians and God stand in their way of total and complete control. The experimental vaccine isn’t about health and it isn’t about politics.
It’s about power.
Power over your body. Power over your mind. Power over your soul. Resist. Keep the faith. We are children of God.
Abortion is MURDER and ‘Since March 2020, over 70,000 women in England and Wales have undergone DIY home abortion.
Abortion pills are being sent to women by abortion providers after calls as short as 30 minutes, without any face to face assessment, identity checks or ultra sound scans to see how far into the pregnancy the women are.
The abortion industry claims these new measures are “safe, ethical and effective” however the evidence suggests the total opposite.
Care for Women is a partnership of UK pro-life groups seeking to compassionately expose and detail the true impact these pills are having on women’s health and society at large through stories, data gathering and discussion.
We share a deep concern, not just for the unborn babies killed by these pills, but for the women taking them, without any in-person medical supervision, often totally alone. We care for women.‘https://www.careforwomen.co.uk/
Here’s a little background. It was ‘In March 2020, just before the first national lockdown began, a notice appeared on the government website, which appeared to allow women to conduct their own medical abortions at home.
Outcry followed and the notice was removed, the government confessing that it had been ‘published in error’. Any visitors to the website were reassured that there would “be no changes to abortion regulations.”
Back in Parliament, Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, assured the House of Commons that “We have no proposals to change any abortion rules as part of the covid-19 response.” And Health Minister Lord Bethell told the House of Lords, “we do not agree that women should be able to take both treatments for medical abortion at home. We believe that it is an essential safeguard that a woman attends a clinic, to ensure that she has an opportunity to be seen alone and to ensure that there are no issues.”
Yet, just days later, the government made an extraordinary U-turn, amending abortion regulations to allow women to abort their child at home.
Psalm 139:13-14 “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.”
‘“Babies in the womb” was the phrase used by one science article in place of the more usual, coldly inhuman fetuses. I approve of the phrase – because even the word fetus actually means “little one”.
The reason why we, as creationists are opposed to abortion and want to see it abolished is because it is the destruction of a human – a little human – made in the image of God. The psalmist says that God knit us together in our mother’s womb. These, and other biblical arguments pointing out the humanity of the unborn baby, show that the ending of the life of an unborn baby can only be described for what it is – the murder of a human being.
There are, therefore, many scientific indicators which also underscore these biblical foundations. It has been known for many years that unborn babies react to light. It had been thought that this simply meant that their incompletely formed eyes simply had light receptors, indicating “light on” or “light off”. A new study shows that the photo-receptors in second trimester babies are actually linked in much more subtle ways to other systems, such as the parts of the brain concerned with moods and emotions. In fact, babies can respond to the amount of light – not just the fact that light is present or not.
My wife and I will not take those China virus vaccine’s that use aborted (murdered) baby parts. Dr. Harnett speaks out on this and other important issues in this article so I have put the whole article here.
‘Someone asked me about my current relationship with Creation Ministries International (CMI) because he no longer saw any new articles written by me appearing on their platform (creation.com).
I explained that I no longer contribute articles or work with them. This situation came about through the organisation’s stance on fetal cells used in vaccines.
For a long time I felt that the leadership had an unacceptable element of biased editorial control. CMI says that they promote a biblical creation (not evolution) message and provide the opportunity for peer-review science publications that are free of the secular bias against such writings. But they have adopted certain corporate positions, which seems to fly in the face of free debate even within the biblical creation discussion space.
When some article is submitted that doesn’t fit their current corporate positions it will not be considered. Or if it is marginal it may be discussed in the Journal of Creation but the article would not be displayed on the website front page but in a journal index, and possibly later as a pdf, but not promoted.
Jason Lisle and Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC)
One of very important issues to the biblical creation community (distant starlight in a young vast universe) has been treated this way since 2001. We will just refer to it as the ASC model. You can find many articles on it on this website. Search “ASC model” or “conventionality thesis” in the search box.
I published many papers on the subject over at least 10 years ending in 2018 when I last published in the Journal of Creation. All my articles on the subject were ever only allowed in the Journal of Creation and never online (which is the much wider audience). See my post Can we see into the past? for an easy-to-understand Powerpoint presentation on the subject.
Jason Lisle originated the answer to the starlight-travel-time problem when he was still a graduate student. His paper was only accepted to be published in the Journal of Creation on this when he first proposed it in 2001 (under a pseudonym Newton, R., Distant starlight and Genesis: Conventions of time measurement, J. Creation 15(1):80–85, 2001 ) because I reviewed the paper and strongly supported its publication. This happened despite the fact that Jonathan Sarfati also reviewed it and rejected it. He didn’t/doesn’t like the idea and the only online web article on it on creation.com is written by Sarfati. He doesn’t understand it and used a strawman argument against it. No matter how much I and others have written on the subject it does not seem to have changed any views of the CMI editorial team.
I was told new ideas are canvassed and discussed in the Journal of Creation and later they may go on the web as they gain acceptance. But this never happened with the ASC model of Jason Lisle. Several of my Journal of Creation papers on it are now available as pdfs on the web but they were never promoted as holding a real answer. In my view, it is the only viable answer to the creationist starlight travel-time problem. I have written on why that is the case.
My own cosmological model, which I developed using Carmeli’s cosmology, has too many problems and I have since abandoned it. Even so it is still promoted as a viable model, even in their premier publication, see chapter 5 of the Creation Answers Book. But Jason Lisle’s model is not mentioned at all. That book may have been last reviewed 10 years after Lisle’s first article.
In January 2019 I wrote to the Australian CEO asking why their is no promotion of Lisle’s ASC model on their website, except one article by Sarfati unjustly critical of it, and why don’t any CMI speakers present it as a viable idea. It had been 18 years since the first publication about it and many other papers (by me) had followed but always only in the Journal of Creation. The CEO told me that he would get back to me on that. One year later I had not heard anything and wrote again in January 2020 asking the same question. Again he said he would find out and get back to me. But alas, crickets.
I have to conclude that CMI is not a free academic clearing house. They are as biased within their own set of decided positions as much as an evolution-promoting secular journal might be within its own position (i.e the evolution must always be represented as a fact). CMI is really a PR organisation not an academic institution open to free debate, even within the context of the biblical worldview.
Fetal cells in vaccines
I tolerated a lot of editorial control (one example explained above) until the issue of fetal cells in vaccines was added to their “vaccine position”.
You may not know but they kept their vaccine position paper non-searchable for many years and the link was only shared if someone asked. Probably because they thought it so divisive that they could lose people over it.
In May 2020 I read a Jonathan Sarfati authored vaccine letter (Vaccines and Abortion, 2012) online at creation.com, which discussed the use of fetal cells as acceptable in making vaccines. I don’t know why I had not noticed that earlier. The acceptance of the practice really flawed me and I could not sleep that whole night. I just couldn’t get the idea out of my head.
Dr Sarfati wrote another article on vaccines in June 2020 and included the same argument. He compared it to organ donations. He wrote: “Would we refuse a life-saving organ that was from a victim of a drunk driver for example who listed “Organ Donor” on the driver’s license, because he was killed in a sinful way?” I could see so many problems with that comparison.
So I researched and wrote an article titled “Using Aborted Babies For Vaccines Is Never Justified“. I sent my paper to the Australian CEO at the Australian CMI office and asked for comment and possibly consideration for publication. After about 3 weeks I had heard nothing. When pressed weeks later on it the CEO said he would respond point by point but he never did. No one at CMI ever responded to me on the issues I raised in that paper. I did have a private email discussion with the former CEO on the issue of the supply of fetal cell lines running low as the reason why new cell lines are needed and that the Chinese in 2015 developed a new cell line. But otherwise no one addressed my points made in the paper.
As a result I published it on my own blog site 1 June 2020. The reason the issue caused me to lose a lot of sleep is because I could not understand a Christian movement condoning use of murdered baby parts for any purpose, vaccine or medicine development. Possibly CMI would also apply their same reasoning to all the recombinant DNA drugs in development (>80) using aborted baby parts under the label of “life saving”. I don’t know.
The world cannot be trusted
It would seem that the editors of CMI publications have bought into the illusion of the global elites’ veracity and trustworthiness. That is, even though we live in a sin-cursed world with the heart of man desperately wicked, they trust in the establishment pronouncements.
They make the point that they are not anti-establishment per se. I agree, we should not be. But when the evidence piles up on the dangers of vaccines, some from the mainstream media but mostly from alternative news sites, due to the massive censorship, we should be more circumspect. We should look “under the hood” and see who is making the medical agents and question their motives.
In a commentary published in journal Nature in 2012, scientists from biotech company Amgen found that findings in 90 per cent of the important cancer papers published in significant medical journals could not be replicated, even with the help of original scientists.
In another review, scientists at the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked back at 67 scientific projects, covering the majority of Bayer’s work in oncology, women’s health and cardiovascular medicine over the past four years. Of these, they found results from internal experiments matched up with the published findings in only 14 projects, but were highly inconsistent in 43 (in a further 10 projects, claims were rated as mostly reproducible, partially reproducible or not applicable.)
“People take for granted what they see published,” John Ioannidis, an expert on data reproducibility at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California wrote in Nature in Sep 2011. “But this and other studies are raising deep questions about whether we can really believe the literature, or whether we have to go back and do everything on our own.”
While some of the un-reproducable results could be due to sloppy research, it appears that much of it is a result of deliberate misconduct. This was clear from a paper published last year.
Dr Ferris C Fang conducted a detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012. It revealed that only 21.3 per cent of retractions were attributable to error.
There was the now famous paper, on a study involving 96 ,032 hospitalised patients and 81,114 controls, alleging to disprove the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as an effective treatment for COVID-19 disease, published May 2020 in the number one medical journal TheLancet. It turned out to be completely fabricated, a total fraud. It is now retracted. There was never any such study ever done.
You might ask, how could the world’s leading medical journal with stringent peer-review not reject such a fraud? How could the Editors approve the fraud? Just look at the journal’s strong links to Big Pharma. Much of its financial support comes from the pharmaceutical industry. Many of the journal editorial team have links via research to Big Pharma. This is a big concern for objective independence. See here for much more on the conflicts of interest and corruption in the medical industrial complex.
I wrote an article a few years ago (2015) that discussed some medical errors of the past and highlighted a new flu vaccine that was given to children in Australia making many very sick. This came about because the company rushed the safety trials to get it to market. See Science the new religion. My paper was more about not trusting too much in the science or those who use the science for financial gain. But CMI would not publish it. It was not part of the controlled narrative that suggests that at least some vaccines are dangerous.
Where I make my stand
My position is to stand against everything that is biblically and ethically wrong. It does not matter what the consequences. There can be no pragmatic view in the realm of abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, and that is what these experimental COVID mRNA injections involve. We must stand only on the Word of God and biblical morality.
But Sarfati of CMI has said that there is no mention of vaccines in the Bible. That is true. Yet we are told that eating the flesh of humans is an abomination to God (Ezekiel 5:7-11, Leviticus 26:27-30, Lamentations 2:16-21, Deuteronomy 28:52-57 are a few references). Injecting another humans cell fragments or DNA seems to be pretty close to cannibalism to me.
Acceptance of fetal cells in vaccines could easily lead to accepting cloned human flesh as a food source. See Salami made from human flesh of famous Hollywood actors. Produced by BiteLabs, who have to be a bunch of the mentally insane. No humans are deliberately killed to make that cloned meat either. Isn’t that also an abomination to God. It certainly is preparing people to accept human flesh, even if lab grown, as normal. What’s next? Soylent green?
This is nothing short of demonic practice. Vampirism! The so-called civilised Western countries have been aborting their unborn children at unprecedented rates. 1.4 million per year in the US and at least 100,000 per year in Australia. And now they are passing laws to murder them right up to full term. Even passing laws to not medical assist the child if born alive in a botched abortion. How heartless and how demon inspired the once Christian West has become.
Satanists also are giving instructions to mothers on the satanic chant to make as they are aborting their babies in the abortion clinics.
CMI claims only a few babies were aborted to make the cell lines used for vaccine development. That is quite disingenuous. Depending on the vaccine, dozens of murdered babies were used.
In 1962 the Wistar Institute, developed their cell line WI-38 from the 32nd abortion in their development process. That abortion was performed in Sweden and shipped to Wistar Institute, Philadelphia. They used lung tissue from the 3 months gestation, Caucasian female baby.
The attenuated rubella virus, clinically named RA273 (R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus, 3=3rd tissue explant), was cultivated on the WI-38 aborted fetal cell line. Isolated by Dr. Stanley Plotkin. And 40 more elective abortions were used for rubella virus isolation by T.H. Chang (67 in total).
Therefore 67 abortions were required to produce rubella virus plus an additional 32 abortions to produce the cell line for cultivation which means there was a total of at least 99 elective abortions to create the rubella vaccine alone. The cell line was used also in development of MMR vaccines. See here for more details on other fetal cell lines.
Stanley Plotkin is probably the most famous developer of vaccines; pioneer and father of many vaccines, which used murdered baby parts. Watch this short 2-minute video segment recorded in 2018, where Plotkin is unrepentant and admits he is happy to go to hell for his deeds. The full 9-hour deposition is available on Bitchute.com
There are other arguments here also relating to the environment of using baby parts for any medical experimentation or drug development which most countries now are doing. The sale of fetal parts by Planned Parenthood is a prime example. Where does it end?
New Zealand is, in my opinion, owned lock stock and barrel by the CCP. Now, ‘Over the course of the past 12 months, New Zealand has been through a number of enforced lockdowns due to COVID-19. Despite these setbacks, our government’s response to the disease has been internationally lauded as an example of how to effectively manage a pandemic.
Some countries—initially, at least—placed their economies ahead of health outcomes. New Zealand, however, chose a different path. From the beginning, the government aimed to eliminate community transmission of the virus. The focus was on saving human life, without regard for age or underlying health conditions, despite the inevitable cost.
From a biblical perspective, this emphasis on the value of life is to be commended. We are all made in the image of God, despite living in a fallen world. As such, we should do everything in our power to extend the life and minimize the suffering of our fellow human beings.
It makes very little sense, however, if atheistic evolution is true. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is supposed to be the key to evolutionary progress. Why, then, should we care about prolonging the life of those least likely to survive a virus? Particularly when the most susceptible are well past their reproductive use-by date.
Sadly, this same valuing of human life does not extend to the most vulnerable in our society. As New Zealand enacted the government’s lifesaving COVID-19 strategy, our parliament passed the Abortion Legislation Act 2020.
The law change was aimed at removing abortion from the Crimes Act. This was to reflect the (sad) reality of abortion in this country. However, the pro-abortion lobby seized the opportunity to implement one of the most extreme pieces of abortion legislation in the world.
Abortion is now available up to birth on demand for any reason. (After 20 weeks, the abortion must be ‘clinically appropriate in the circumstances’. Experience with the previous legislation tells us that this will, in most cases, be a foregone conclusion.4)
There is now no legal age limit on seeking or having an abortion. Parental notification is not required for minors. Sex-selective abortions are legal (an amendment to ban sex-selective abortions was voted down by members of parliament). The 20-week limit for disability-selective abortions has been scrapped. And babies born alive after a ‘failed’ abortion do not have to be given medical support.
Medical practitioners who object to abortion do not have to assist in the procedure. But they are required by law to provide information on how to contact the nearest provider.
This contradiction in valuing human life is hard to comprehend. It is also impossible to reconcile with evolution. If those with the highest reproductive rate are more likely to contribute to evolutionary progress, as evolutionists would have us believe, why would otherwise healthy individuals choose to abort their offspring?
Most abortions in New Zealand are performed because our society has deemed unwanted pregnancy to be an inconvenience that can be ‘solved’ by medical intervention. This stands in stark contrast to the biblical understanding of life.’
‘So how, might you ask, does this relate to cows? Let me explain.
New Zealand is also held up internationally as a model for the efficient production of dairy products. We are the world’s largest exporter, accounting for over 20% of the dairy export trade. This is more than twice as much as our nearest competitor.6
To produce milk, cows must have calves. For maximum efficiency, it is preferable that the cows all calve at the same time. As such, late calving cows can be ‘inconvenient’ for the farmer. One way to solve this problem is to induce the cow, which results in calves either born dead, or requiring euthanasia because they are not viable.7
I have personally sought to speak to several Australian Federal Parliamentarians about the abortion issue with no success. However, a Queensland senator says “I am asking my parliamentary colleagues, and in fact, our entire community to consider the painful question: ‘what happens to a child born alive during a late term abortion?’ The uncomfortable truth is that the child is left to die.” – George Christensen
Most Australians are unaware that hundreds of documented cases exist of babies being born alive after botched abortions and then left to die.
Federal and state guidelines say no treatment is required. Just let them die.
Courageous and compassionate state parliamentarians Nick Goiran of Western Australia and Dr Mark Robinson of Queensland, both Liberals, have been shining light on this practice for years.
Sadly, their parliamentary colleagues and the media avert their eyes.
Regardless of which side of the abortion debate one is on, only those with the hardest of hearts don’t find the practice heart-wrenching and tragic.
I believe that if most Australians knew the truth about abortion and the harm it inflicts on mothers, they would demand reform.
It is a practice fiercely protected by our cultural and media elites; and by men, whose convenience is the primary beneficiary. Alternative views on abortion are mostly suppressed in the public discourse.
Liberal National Party member for Dawson, George Christensen, read of this while preparing to speak at the Brisbane launch of the book last July.
He promised that night he would push for law reform and this week he delivered, releasing the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021. You can read the bill here.
He also released research from the Parliamentary Library which independently validates the figures Gioran and Robinson have been quoting for years as well as providing new statistics from Victoria.
In WA, 27 babies had been born alive and left to die between 1999 and 2016.
In the 10 years to 2015, 204 Queensland babies died this way while 33 in Victorian perished after botched abortions between 2012 and 2016.
Christensen’s bill requires medical practitioners to treat a baby surviving abortion the same way they would any other patient. Who would oppose this?
Currently the federal government’s advice to a doctor or nurse encountering a baby born alive after abortion is to “not offer treatment”.
I wonder if Scott Morrison is aware of this.
Christensen appeals to provisions in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Both support the right to life. Both have been signed by Australia. But when it comes to the human rights of our most vulnerable citizens, we have chosen to look away.
In a media release issued yesterday and ignored by the mainstream media, Christensen says:
“I am asking my parliamentary colleagues, and in fact, our entire community to consider the painful question: ‘what happens to a child born alive during a late term abortion?’
“The uncomfortable truth is that the child is left to die.
“As one state agency (South Australia) so brutally puts it: ‘the baby … is wrapped in a blanket and the mother is given the opportunity to hold the baby as it dies’.
“This issue has been on my heart and mind for a long time.
“Now that I have more information on the number of children we are talking about, though those figures understate the problem, I must act.”
Christensen’s bill points out that Australia is in breach of both the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“I have provided the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Act 2021 bill to the Prime Minister and other key ministers, seeking their support on adopting this bill, or allowing a conscience vote on it,” Christensen said.
“The bill makes it an offence not to provide life-saving treatment punishable with penalties of higher than $400,000 for health practitioners and higher for corporations.
“It also could see health practitioners who breach the law deregistered in Australia.
whatyareckon 