Keeping the Faith

Wrong Way, Turn Back (Yes YOU Tassie, on all things Abortion)

The weather on Thursday suited the gloomy forecast from parliament as the Legislative Council passed the Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Bill, further opening up access to abortion in Tasmania.  It only needs the tick from the lower house now.

A sad day for the unborn.

I wonder if it was sunny in Sydney, because up there, ‘Zoe’s Law’ convincingly passed the lower house, 63 votes to 26.  You might recall the case of pregnant woman Brodie Donegan whose 36-week-old unborn child died when she was hit by a car.  This bill for the first time recognises the crime of grievous bodily harm against an unborn child.

Such disparate results for life within the womb.

What do you do when something you know to be intrinsically wrong, is upheld in law?  Passionate and convicted people have worked tirelessly to lobby politicians since Tasmania’s ‘Reproductive Health’ bill was introduced earlier this year.  Was all their breath and ink a waste?

I don’t think so.

We’ve had lively debate in the media, which in turn has ignited conversations around dinner tables amongst family, over coffee with friends and in the lunchroom with colleagues.  We’ve asked, “When does life begin?”, “When does a baby start to feel pain?”, “How do we balance a woman’s rights over her body with a baby’s right to live?”

Perhaps you’ve had one of these conversations and have been challenged.  I know I have.

Still, I feel aggrieved at the decision my government has taken and the disregard for life.

I had Brooke Fraser playing in the background as I busied myself with the housework on Friday.  The lyrics to Flags felt as if they arched straight from my heart and the hearts of so many who, I know, feel a sense of loss on behalf of vulnerable unborn babies.

“Reality has left you reeling
All facts and no feeling
No faith and all fear…”

What exactly are pro-choice activists celebrating right now? I’ll answer that for you: death.

“I don’t know why the innocents fall
While the monsters still stand
And our lives blow about
Like flags on the land,” Fraser crooned sadly.

I don’t know why God has allowed this injustice, but I do know that he will bring everything to justice in his perfect time.

And like the abolition of slavery, there needs to be an awakening first, a revolution if you like. People’s eyes will be opened to how the rights of innocents are being monopolised for the convenience of the powerful.

With the 50-year-anniversary of C. S. Lewis’ death this month, it was only fitting that he get a mention.  What a great man he was, wise and ahead of his time.  I’m frequently awed by the way his words poetically pinpoint the human condition.  In his book Mere Christianity, he said this:

“We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”


First published in The Examiner newspaper for Keeping the Faith column on Monday November 25, 2013.


  1. John Wigg says

    Thursday’s tragic Upper House vote is in tune with the violent and hedonistic spirit of the ancient Graeco-Roman cult of Dionysos/Bacchus. Why do we crucify Christ afresh in the parliaments of “civilised” Western countries?

    Keep speaking out for those who may never get to speak for themselves, Claire.

  2. Sheelagh Wegman says

    Strong words, well said. Thank you Claire.
    ‘All facts and no feeling
    No faith and all fear…’ Describes our parliament.

  3. Fiona Vosper says

    Hi Claire,

    How are you?

    I would like to know what is your alternative is to safe, legal abortion. Do you think that a woman who doesn’t want a baby because she believes that she isn’t ready for a child should be forced to go through pregnancy and labor against her will? And if she tries to abort the baby herself or goes to a “backyard” doctor, should she be prosecuted? Do you concede that perhaps an abortion is a personal matter and that you do not have the right to force someone to use their body for the benefit of someone else?
    I think that there is a lot of support for pregnant mums to carry through with a pregnancy and have a child. But if a woman still doesn’t want to do that, what right do you think that others (strangers) have to try and prevent her access to safe, legal abortion.

    I would also like to know on what authority you base your opinion. I believe that the ultimate authority as to whether a fetus is carried to term or not is the mother, the host of the fetus. It is her body and I believe that the right to total body autonomy trumps the rights of the fetus.
    I have been unable to find any verse in the Bible that fully supports your position, as at no time does God (or anyone else in the Bible) say that a woman must carry a baby to term. Abortion has been common for thousands of years, i.e. during times of famine or war a woman would make a cocktail of various herbs to bring on an abortion, if she felt that she couldn’t provide for a child.
    If God is against it, as you say, then why didn’t he specifically make it a law?

    Also, as a pro-choice supporter, I am not celebrating “death”. I find that comment naive and insulting. I am celebrating the fact that I have total, 100% body autonomy throughout my whole life, regardless of what condition I am in. It doesn’t mean that I celebrate abortion and it doesn’t mean that I would access such a service if I got pregnant tomorrow.

    The biggest win out of this legislation is the fact that women can access abortion in private at a clinic without being hassled by people out the front, waving signs and shouting insults. That is being a busy body and everybody has the right to privacy when accessing medical services.

    Looking forward to your response,


    • Hi Fiona,
      I suspect you already know my answers to most of your questions – I’ve certainly covered them here on this blog.

      A woman and her baby are completely different persons. They have unique DNA. They have separate heartbeats. They are individuals. Now, outside the womb, one person does not have the ‘right’ to end the life of another person. We call that murder. Yet for some reason that is completely beyond me, our society deems it permissible to end life within the womb.

      If a baby was one day old and its mother killed it, that would be murder. Yet if she chose to abort her baby one day before its due date, that’s not murder?

      God has much to say about that and it most definitely IS enshrined within the law of the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:13): “You shall not murder”. Murder is, “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”. One human being, by another – two different people, just like a baby and its mother.

      I acknowledge that there are difficult circumstances around unwanted pregnancy but abortion is not the solution. “Strangers” legislate our way of life all the time to uphold what is right and protect society’s most vulnerable. Strangers legislate the speed we are allowed to travel on the roads, the safety of our homes, the way we treat others. You could say that restricts our rights – but these laws are for our own safety and to protect peace and our way of life.

      You say, what right does a stranger have to prevent a woman’s access to safe and legal abortion… I say, what right does one person have to take another person’s life, whether in or out of the womb.

      Finally, this abortion act not only decriminalises abortion, it criminalises opposition to abortion, making it a criminal offence to do so much as hold a peaceful prayer vigil outside of an abortion clinic. Is that democratic? What about my right to protest what I know to be wrong?

      Don’t worry Fiona, this piece of legislation was not the beginning of the abortion story in Tasmania, nor will it be the end. I just pray that your eyes will be opened to the injustice it encapsulates for the unborn.

      • Fiona Vosper says

        Good Afternoon Claire,

        It is true that there are two separate heart beats and that mother and baby have separate DNA. But, and this is the important part, that baby or fetus is 100% totally in-cased inside somebody else, who has to use their body to host it. Autonomy over one’s body is a human right that extends to after we die. We cannot remove a fetus and put it another womb, so surely the woman who has to use her womb and put her body through an extremely traumatic experience should be able to decide as to whether she does that. That is why she has the right to “take another’s person’s life”, although calling a fetus a person, in my opinion, is a stretch.

        In my opinion (and many others share my view) abortion is not murder. So, again in my opinion, God doesn’t mention abortion in the Bible at all. You have a right to your opinion and you have a right to never have an abortion. But you do not have the right to try and have the law changed so that others who do not share your view cannot access a service they believe that they require, for their own personal reasons. You attitude is sheer arrogance. You want to bar everyone from accessing abortion because you, personally, don’t agree with it. I don’t personally agree with many things, organised religion being one. I believe that it is most damaging to children to bring them up in a home where they are being taught mythology as fact and are taught not to use reason and logic. I do not seek to outlaw religion, nor try and force you to bring your child up in the way that I think that you should. I just live my life my way and I don’t subject my child to such practices.

        Why do you want to hold a prayer vigil outside an abortion clinic? If God hears all prayers, what difference does it make if you pray there, or outside parliament house (a more appropriate venue for such a protest) or in the mall or at your church or in your home? Just because you don’t agree with the procedure, doesn’t mean you have the right to try and shame vulnerable women and infringe on their fundamental right to privacy. Is that democratic? No one is taking away your right to voice your opinion on the matter (you have a column in the newspaper where you regularly speak out against abortion, for goodness sake!) How do you know the reasons that every woman would visit such a clinic? Maybe the baby is already dead and they are removing the fetus because it is still inside her. Maybe she was raped or coerced. Maybe she has 5 other children, on benefits, her partner is dead, she is suffering from acute depression and she had too much to drink and went home with a stranger and is now pregnant with a child that she knows she cannot look after. She has the right to access a legal procedure without being judged, shouted at and called names or prayed at.

        Stranger do legislate our lives to a large degree, but they do not legislate as to how we use our bodies: Who we want (or don’t want) to have sex with, whether we have tattoos, if we want to donate organs or not, have a blood transfusion, what we eat, even whether we vaccinate our kids against deadly diseases or drink and smoke during pregnancy. Whether we go through with a pregnancy or not…….

        You have been brainwashed into believing that as soon as man’s seed has been planted inside a woman she no longer has control over her own body. I feel so sorry for you and hope that one day you will realise that you are a victim of religious and self-righteous men who wish to control women and what they do with their bodies. Who fear women and wish to keep them subjugated. I hope one day your eyes are open to the fact that the world isn’t so black and white and maybe you don’t have all the answers. That people’s lives are not the same as yours, their experiences and circumstances are different from yours and how people just don’t feel the same way you do. It just makes me so sad.

      • Fiona, I wish you wouldn’t call it “brainwashing”. I understand that you’re coming from a secular viewpoint, so religion is but a philosophy/ideology to you. I would argue that secularism is every bit as much an ideology. If religion is a tool of rationalization, so is secularism, each provides a framework for viewing the world. All the more should you realise that the secularism is a debatable ideology since, I’m assuming, you don’t believe in the existence of an absolute moral truth.

        So maybe Claire and many other pro-lifers (religious or irreligious) have been “brainwashed”. At least we have been brainwashed to believe in equality of life, and equality in access to society’s resources, that it is wrong for one person to assert their autonomy on another in a way that harms the other, especially when the victim is defenseless. It is a life-giving, life-sustaining, life-respecting ideology. We acknowledge that we were each given a shot at life and were cared for and taught the ways of life till we were old enough to carve out our own, and we don’t see why we could be justified in denying others of these rights when we ourselves are so indebted.

        There was a recent NYT article about a Christian family who kept adopting special needs kids even though they weren’t necessarily wealthy. I was appalled by comments alluding to the fact that these children would have been better off aborted, or comments berating the parents’ desire to “share the gospel” with their adopted kids, calling it “brainwashing”. You can disagree with religion, but I’m glad I’ll be raising my kids to embrace a life-giving ideology, rather than one puts one’s convenience and comfort above another innocent being’s life.

        Fiona, you really don’t need to be a Christian to be pro-life. I would recommend checking out to see what they have to say. Awesome stuff.

      • Fiona Vosper says

        Hi karenzai

        I wish that Claire wouldn’t use the word “murder” when describing abortion, but she does because that is the way she sees it. I see Religion as brainwashing, and having grown up in a Baptist family, I feel like I can see objectively from the outside in when it comes to those who believe in this particular superstition.

        I never said I was into secular ideology. I hate labels. I am of the notion that no one really know how or why we are here and what the meaning of life is. I find it really arrogant that people feel that they have all the answers and then try to enforce their views onto others and try to restrict how they wish to live, like women seeking abortion and homosexual people.

        Absolute moral truths do not exist, in my opinion. Where is the evidence that they do? Morals are subjective. In the case of Abortion, it isn’t even mentioned in the Bible, so why you think that you can put words in God’s mouth and tell others what God thinks of the abortion debate in Tasmania astounds me. That’s not an absolute moral truth. That is a subjective argument.

        As I said in my last post, I believe that it is most damaging to children to bring them up in a home where they are being taught mythology as fact and are taught not to use reason and logic. To teach kids that evidence doesn’t matter and faith is all you need. I don’t think that it is a life-giving, life-sustaining, life-respecting ideology. I believe that every Christian picks and chooses the bits they like from the Bible and disregards large portions of it. However, I do not seek to restrict you or how you want to live your life. Go for it, whatever floats your boat, so to speak. You, however, do wish to do that to people who do not share you ideology.

        Your last point about the Christian family adopting the disabled children does not apply to the argument of abortion. I, too find it wonderful that those people would do that for children who are disabled and probably have experienced great pain, both physically and mentally over their short lives. They are trying to fix a huge problem in their own small way and they should be commended. Those commentors underneath were probably trolls using who were using flaming language to try and get a rise out of people like you.

        Even if someone is “secular” and they don’t believe in abortion, I still believe that they have been brainwashed into believing that as soon as man’s seed has been planted inside a woman she no longer has control over her own body.

    • Anne Lee says

      Aborttion is not a personal matter , it concerns us all as a society .
      If a woman wants to have full control over her body then she also needs to take responsibility for a baby conceived in her womb.
      It amazes me when I hear of abortion clinics trying to sanitize what they are doing by calling it a “medical procedure”. I feel so sad that as a society we can justify this taking of life .
      I hear about the mental state of women being affected by continuing with a preganancy. What about the mental state of women after an abortion , I can’t believe they can feel 100 percent comfortable with their decision as the years go by, especially when there are so many people out there who are desperate to adopt babies.
      Life is so precious and God given , we should honor that, regardless of our gender.

      • Fiona Vosper says

        “If a woman wants to have full control over her body then she also needs to take responsibility for a baby conceived in her womb.”

        Why? On what authority do you base that?

      • Anne Lee says

        Why should a woman ( and man ) take responsibilty for their actions ? Why not ? If a woman is having a sexual relationship and a pregnancy is the outcome then both she and her partner need to take responsibility for the child. In rape cases I do agree the circumstances are very different but then with support and loving care a woman could still go ahead and deliver the child to be given up for adoption if she is unable or unwilling to care for the baby.It is a hard decision but then so is abortion.
        Please don’t judge Godly women as being brainwashed or being controlled by men , I think we know this is not true . Many Christian women are deep thinkers who try to make sense of the world around them but have found understanding from a Christian perspective and worldview. I also had a very different views before I became a mother and a Christian .

      • Fiona Vosper says

        Hi Anne,

        Where does it state that if a woman gets pregnant she must use her womb to incubate that baby to term and then give birth to it? Where does it state that if birth control fails, bad luck?

        Where does it state that if a woman doesn’t want a baby, she still has to go through the trauma of pregnancy and labor as an incubator for a childless couple?

        Where does it state that a woman is not taking responsibilities for her actions if she has an abortion?

        Why should a woman, who’s body has been taken against her will, have pressure on her to carry a rapist’s seed? Who on earth are you to say what a woman should or shouldn’t do under those circumstances?

        I don’t judge you for being a godly woman. Do what you like. I do believe that you are brainwashed and that your bible was written, in part, so that men can control women. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians are very telling in their attitude towards women. I’m sure a lot of you are deep thinkers, that’s the saddest part. That you let fear dictate what you believe, rather than logic and critical thinking. I find it very sad.

      • Anne, it’s clear that neither you nor I will be changing our stances on the morality of abortion. I will rest my case for now since there are already more plenty of compelling, intellectually rigorous and morally consistent pro-life arguments out there (again, check out, for one). I just wanted to express that it is deeply offensive (not to mention ignorant, sorry) to assume that Christians choose to set aside logic and critical thinking. We are talking about the morality of abortion, I don’t understand why you feel the need to tear down religion if you so believe that this matter can be argued from an entirely secular point of view (so do most Christian pro-lifers, by the way). It is true that there are many “Christians” who display a lack of intellectual integrity in picking and choosing what to believe, and are unable to explain why they believe what they believe. I’m not going to make an intellectual case for Christianity right here and now, but that there are so many reputable Christian intellectuals, scientists, physicians, historians, sociologists, philosophers…doesn’t that in the least hint to you that the Christian worldview stands up to rigorous academic scrutiny? Did you know that the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Catholic Priest? In fact, what pushed me to seriously consider the validity of Christianity in the first place was exposure to exceedingly compelling historical arguments. I understand that all this is irrelevant to the actual discussion, but I feel a need to respond to your uncalled-for (and also irrelevant) attacks on Christianity.

      • Fiona Vosper says

        well, viable scientific theory is a viable scientific theory, regardless of who it comes from. He didn’t just claim something to be true. There has been a mountain of work done to try and prove the theory. Interesting that so many Christians deny and so many non-religious people stand by it.

        ” It is true that there are many “Christians” who display a lack of intellectual integrity in picking and choosing what to believe, and are unable to explain why they believe what they believe”
        In my opinion, Claire does this.

        none of the physical evidence of Jesus’ life and death hold up to scientific scrutiny. That is why religion is a matter of faith. So you can say that there are “so many reputable Christian intellectuals, scientists, physicians, historians, sociologists, philosophers”, but they all still rely on faith. And it’s based on the irrational fear that the soul will be damned for all eternity. “doesn’t that in the least hint to you that the Christian worldview stands up to rigorous academic scrutiny?” No, it doesn’t hint that to me, because that’s not true.

        You don’t have to change your mind on abortion. You are free to believe what you like.

        As am I.

      • Fiona, this will be my last reply. You are an intelligent, strong woman, I can tell. I’m sure you are a great blessing in the lives of many, and have done many good things for loved ones and strangers alike. I just wanted to caution you against one danger: I accept that you worship no God right now, but please, be wary of worshipping Science. It sounds to me like you do. The way you talk about science and knowledge is as if you believe that all viable knowledge can only come from the scientific mode of inquiry. What about historical, anthropological, sociological inquiry? Philosophy? Source criticism and redaction criticism? Many things cannot be made sense of by the scientific method (Hypothesis, Observation, Conclusion). Man designed this method to make sense of the physical, material world. That’s why you can’t use Science to make conclusions about an immaterial, spiritual realm, if it does exist. And also exclusive to things and events that can actually be repeated in a laboratory. And if something is repeatable, it’s no miracle, is it? Also, history cannot be repeated. Yet nobody questions historical findings and conclusions on who Napoloean was and what he did (he lived before Jesus, records on him are way fewer in number, as with many other ancient historical figures. Also, all written way longer after their deaths, which is always historically suspect because that gives time for myth to develop without any of their contemporaries being able to decry them). Like I said, I’m not going to make a case for Christianity right now. I recommend “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist” — it was quite instrumental in my journey toward faith. Oh yes, faith. You talk of faith like its poisonous. Let’s begin with the basic faith that we don’t know everything. Faith that Science always takes a while to catch up (at some point, students were taught in schools that the atom was the smallest particle). Faith that there is more. And we don’t stop at blind faith. With our faith we cry out to a living God. And if he is a living God who cared enough to send his son to die for our sins, I don’t see why he wouldn’t personally respond. I pray that if a God exists, which I have come to believe with every fibre of my being (long story with many instances of rejection and rebellion), he will also reach you, shake you, move you. I wish you all the best.

      • Fiona Vosper says

        Hi Karenzai
        I know you said that you wouldn’t reply again, but I just wanted to reply to some of your points.

        I don’t worship science. I worship nothing. I am the master of my own domain. I decide what I do and what I don’t do based on my own thoughts and feelings and the thoughts and feelings of those closest to me. I believe that man is the ultimate authority. I believe that God is largely anthropomorphic. I believe that we should never stop questioning what we are told. I believe that everyone should live according to their own truth, whether that be Christian, Buddist, green, conservative, gay, straight, Elvis, whatever. I do no like the way that Christian people in this state infringe on that right. Just because it’s your truth, doesn’t mean that it is The Truth. Just because you live like that, doesn’t mean everybody wants to. You may think that you have found the secret to life and it’s meaning, but not everybody thinks that your way is the right way. Therefore, the opposition to things like Gay marriage, abortion and euthanasia by the Christians in this state, based on the belief in what equates to a superstition, is wrong. You have no right to infringe on the lives of others and try to dictate what is right and wrong for their lives.

        I believe somewhat in the supernatural, having experienced things that I cannot explain rationally. But that is just it. I have no idea what is beyond death. And neither do you or Clarie or any Christian. You have picked what you like best. Why Chrsitans cannot just keep that to themselves, but continually try to “convert” people who aren’t interested, to try and have laws based on it and to try and have it taught as some sort of fact in schools (creation? It’s ridiculous to expect that to be presented as a viable alternative to evolution when it does not have the evidence to back it up), I’ll never know.

        I have “faith” in many things. That the sun will rise tomorrow. That the grass is green. That if I have a period cramp, a paracetamol will help. That if I plant a flower, it will grow if it gets sunlight and water.
        Your faith means pretending to know things that you don’t.
        Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
        Here is a great article that explains further.

        I don’t know much about the life of Napoleon (he wasn’t that short, I have heard that), however I believe that your comment about his life is in reference to a pamphlet written in 1819 by a Richard Whatley, in response to another paper written by an atheist casing doubts on the existence of Jesus.
        The pamphlet was written whist Napoleon was still alive and it was meant to be tongue in cheek. Christians still use it as an example today without knowing where the reference came from.
        Also, millions of people aren’t worshiping Napoleon, they don’t claim that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead or walked on water or brought a man back from the dead and they don’t think that laws should be based on what he may or may not have said.
        It also proves that, over time, we lose history, we lose what was said and what was done. There are arguments among Elvis worshipers over what Elvis’ favourite food was and how to prepare it and that was only just over 40 years ago. Jesus lived over 2000 years ago. To claim that we know exactly what Jesus said or didn’t say or what he did is ludicrous. Some of the Gospels even contradict themselves and were written well after Jesus’ death.

        I have believed. I was baptised at 19 years old. I loved Jesus and got great comfort from praying to him, which I did every single night (and throughout the day). ( I have an instant attraction to men around the ages 25-35 with long hair and beards! I believe that stems back to my childish comfort in Jesus). It’s funny, though, because I thumb through my bible a lot more now than I ever did then. My favourite part is when God condones rape in the old testament. Never had a Christian yet who could explain that to me or justify it. It was one of the things that got me thinking that this couldn’t be right. They gloss over it. It disgusts me.

        I will never believe again. I have come to believe with every fibre of my being that it just isn’t true. That it is superstition. It would take a vision much like Paul on the road to Damascus.(Paul. Now there is an interesting character. Some say he wanted to start his own religion.) And even then I’d be wondering if someone had put LSD in my drink. (Much like what I believe happened to John the Revalator!)

        Anyway, hopefully one day we all find a way to exist together. I would like to see the Christians of Tasmania embrace the notion that they might not be right, and that everybody has the right to live their lives their own way. Even if that includes a gay marriage, an abortion and the right to choose when they die.

  4. Hi Claire
    What an upside down society we live in. You are right when you say that this abortion act not only decriminalises abortion in Tasmania, but it criminalises opposition to abortion – the killing of human lives, even up until full term, with the consent of two doctors, I understand. How rightly did the prophet Isaiah speak of these times when he said in Chapter 5 verse 20 in the Bible: Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
    who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
    who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter.
    Interestingly, a GP in Melbourne named Dr Mark HOBART has been under investigation recently by the Victorian Medical registration authorities because he refused to refer a couple to another doctor for a sex-selective abortion. The couple had a 19 week gestation girl and they wanted a boy. They apparently still obtained the abortion. Now Dr Hobart, who until now has an unblemished career faces the possibility of being deregistered as a doctor – because he wanted desperately to see this little girl’s life preserved. What is even worse is that if this happens, he will probably not be allowed to practise anywhere in Australia. Fiona is obviously an intelligent young woman, so I just cannot figure out why she and so many other pro-choice women REFUSE to take responsibility for the protection of vulnerable fully formed babies – not just fetuses – and to accept that they are separate viable human beings – viable apart from the mother’s body, at least in the later stages of pregnancy. I believe that Michelle O’Byrne, Lara Giddings and every member of both houses of the Tasmanian Parliament have, metaphorically speaking, “blood on their hands”.

    • Absolutely right. Spot on – it is even hypocritical how doctors who should be saving lives are scrutinising one of their own for protecting a baby girl from sex-selection abortion – something that is abhorrent regardless of which sex is aborted.

  5. Hi Claire (again)
    Sorry, in my above comments, I meant to say in the last sentence….every member of both houses of the Tasmanian Parliament who voted for the decriminalisation of abortion have, metaphorically speaking, “blood on their hands”. Obviously not every member in either houses voted for this evil outcome.

    • Thanks Peter – yes, and those who voted against the legislation are a courageous bunch, that’s for sure. A few pollies did a last minute about-turn which was particularly disappointing.

      I have been following the Dr Mark Hobart case with great interest. It will certainly set a scary precedent if he is deregistered as a result. Sex selection abortion is the epitome of evil – I know that even people who identify themselves as ‘pro-choice’ find the idea of sex selection abortions distasteful. We will wait, hope and pray that Dr Hobart is rewarded for his admirable stance on this issue.

      Love that Isaiah verse, so true, thanks for sharing.

  6. intuitivereason says

    Apparently, at least for a time, our government has declared the unborn to be chattel. They have decreed the dehumanisation of a group; down that path lie all the great evils of the state. I take hope in the fact that over time, all these great evils have been seen for the deep wrong that they are. We forget that there was a time — not so long ago — when slavery was acceptable, when people were considered subhuman because of their race, when genocide was an accepted practice, when war crimes were commonplace.

    Now, only abortion remains. It too will inevitably — in the long run — pass into history.

    In this context, the argument that it has always been done does not hold. History is replete with the decisions to stop doing things we have ‘always’ done. The argument that they are mere property does not hold. A master no longer holds the right of life and death over their slave, nor even the right to consider another their slave. The argument that a person should not bear the consequence of their choices has never held, even those these days it is fashionable to consider the isolation of choice and consequence a civilised act, rather than the sign of neglect that it is.

    Hopefully we are able to see this (literally) inhuman decision revisited and reversed in the next couple of years.

    • Yes indeed ‘Querty’, this is such a powerful and confronting video. I hope many people will see it.

  7. John Wigg says

    If Karen’s doubts about the existence of “absolute moral truths” are well-founded – what are we to say about “truths” in general? The very word, “truth” itself has always had moral significance as the opposite of “lies”. If there are no moral absolutes, yesterday’s “truth” may become tomorrow’s “lie” – one generation’s “dark, raging passions” may become another generation’s “golden virtues”.

    If wrong is no longer the implacable enemy of right, eventually language becomes a constantly-evolving, amorphous “soup” of fine-sounding vocalisations designed to soothe a human species which knows only life’s illusions – not life itself.

    To hold that moral truths are not absolute tends to a state of affairs where any attempt to answer questions of good and evil proves to be a meaningless exercise. Why has the phrase “moral truth” not disappeared from 21st-Century English entirely? Why does the notion of “insanity” still imply that the “real world” and the “fantasy world” are two very different places?

Comments are closed.