Abortion and Peter Singer: Singing out of Tune

2 Comments
ultrasound of an unborn child
Photo by Pavel Danilyuk on Pexels.com

“For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.”

Psalm 139:13

It is not a controversial fact that life begins at fertilization.1 For instance, a Princeton University webpage lists fifteen academic sources that support this point. One of the quoted sources clearly states that “fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed”.2 An article from PubMed states that “Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions… assessed survey items on when a human’s life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view [human life begins at fertilization]”.3 I could go on.

So, the abortion debate is now centred on philosophical considerations. One case study will do. Peter Singer, Emeritus Professor of Bioethics at Princeton, answers whether he would save a mouse or human being from a fire: in “almost all cases [he] would save the human being”. Interestingly, the reason for this saving is “not because the human being is human” but because “it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life — that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future”. Singer’s criteria for something that is worth saving involves some kind of temporal awareness. To explicitly connect this answer to abortion, “no newborn baby is a person” because newborn babies do not have “a sense of the future”.4

Read More

The National Jellyfish

2 Comments

Here at the Sojournal we have been suspicious of Luxon from the beginning. Claiming to be a Christian, he has regularly exhibited jellyfish-like tendencies – a lack of a spine, and a willingness to drift with the current. (Other articles on Luxon are here, here and here.) His latest folly comes a day after Christians and conservatives the world over are celebrating the best bit of news we’ve had for a long time: Roe v Wade being overturned. Simon O’Connor, posted the following on his Facebook page which sad death-loving leftists took umbridge with.

Luxon forced O’Connor to take the post down because, and I quote “it was causing distress and does not represent the position of the National Party.” In this Luxon demonstrates once again that he is an unprincipled coward. To care more for the distress of some trauma queens over the loss of a ‘right’ to dismember babies more than the tens of millions of dead bodies that Roe v Wade has led to shows a broken moral compass. Woe to those who call evil good and good evil. And the first step to calling evil good, is refusing to celebrate good or castigate evil.

What the overturning of Roe v Wade has demonstrated is that Christians can impact culture through smart politics. For too long, many pietistic Christians have personalised their faith and shunned things like politics because our personal faith in Jesus is more important and politics is dirty. As important as that personal faith is, we have been commanded to make disciples of the nations and teach these disciples to obey all that Christ commanded. What’s sad, is a man like Trump, who does not seem to have lived any sort of Christian life is responsible for a major change like this, but a man who claims to be a Christian like Luxon, can’t even let a fellow Christian celebrate it. Christians can and should be involved in seeing Christ’s rule and reign extended. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that we can expect National to enact godly law while it is led by such a jellyfish. My encouragement to all Christians is to give up on National at the next election. This man is not the leader we are looking for. He lacks courage and conviction and is focused on gaining power at any cost without holding to any real principles. In this he represents no real change from Jacinda Ardern.

Self-Awareness 0 Hypocrisy 1

The lack of self-awareness of some of the left is just gob-stopping.

Thus says the pink-haired woman who supported forced masking, vaccine passports and mandated vaccination that affected so many New Zealanders. We have just had two years of religious zealots such as her ruining our lives, livelihoods and our country’s economy all in the name of supposedly saving lives. But dare we on the right actually try saving lives by…I don’t know… stopping the murder of innocent babies, we are religious zealots who are taking people’s rights away.

The right to take innocent human life is no right at all despite what the demons from hell and their servants on earth might think on the matter. Interestingly enough, like so many of her ilk, she’s not willing to hear from the other side. Only those she mentions and follows can reply. Because there is no argument for abortion. You either are against it, or you are committed to an evil atrocity and both history and Christ will judge you for it.

Then we have our childish prime minister adding her deep ‘wisdom’ on the issue. She boasts of our country’s recent shame of turning the murder of innocent unborn children into a ‘health’ issue. Then without stopping to wash the blood from her hands, she sanctimoniously mounts her high horse to speak to the people. The overturning of Roe v Wade according to her facile approach is about the personal convictions of some robbing others of the right to make their own decisions.

Wow. Another silly leftist woman so full of hubris that she can’t see her own hypocrisy. How dare this woman lecture on this topic? How dare she talk about personal beliefs infringing on the rights of people to make their own decisions? You forced almost an entire country to get vaccinated, many against their will and at threat of the loss of livelihood with an experimental vaccine. Stop talking. You have no moral right to wax eloquent about not robbing people of their right to choose.

Thank goodness both these women are on the wane. The sooner they are gone from public life, the better for our country. God protect us from godless and meddling women.

The Resistance – The Word and Prayer – Part 2C

Yesterday we sought to give some practical suggestions which will help Christians make the Word and prayer central to their households. This is an essential step as we build the Christian Resistance and seek to see New Zealand turn back to Christ. As each family cell in the Resistance is led by men who prioritise the Word and prayer, we should expect to see God working great things. His Word will not return to him empty but will achieve the purpose for which he sent it out (Isaiah 55:11). And we know that purpose: it is that the knowledge of the Lord will fill the earth as the waters cover the sea (Habakkuk 2:14).

4. Hold to the Sufficiency of Scripture Practically

It is also vital that as we read the Scriptures we hold to the sufficiency of Scripture. And I don’t mean just nod intellectually to this concept. I mean actually believe and act upon it. The Apostle Paul wrote these words that most Christians know by heart. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Paul argues that Scripture can be applied so that the man of God can be complete and equipped for every good work.

Do we know what to think about helping the poor? The Scriptures are sufficient for developing a robust and Christ-honouring approach. Do we want to know how Christians should respond to the COVID-19 lockdowns and potential vaccine mandates? We should search the Scriptures. Do we want to know whether redistributive tax policy is a Christian approach to government? We have the Scriptures which enable us to be equipped for every good work, whether it is in politics, family life, work-life, economics or science.

Read More

Contradictory Nazis

The Whitehouse. “When people are able to make choices without government interference for themselves in terms of their well being and the well-being of their family in consultation with whomever they may choose, we are a stronger society.“

Also the Whitehouse. If you work for the government you must be vaccinated or lose your job. If you are working in a company of over 100 people you must be vaccinated or be subjected to weekly tests.

I guess people are allowed their own ‘well-being’ decisions when it involves murdering unborn children, but not when it comes to whether they get vaccinated. Murder as a well-being choice is ok, but not getting a prick in the arm…that’s a line too far.

Hypocrisy

Isn’t it interesting that the government which so keen to ‘save lives’ by locking us down in our homes to escape from a virus is also the same government that got behind the decriminalisation of Abortion Legislation Bill of 2020 that allows over a thousand NZ babies to be slaughtered every month.

I guess they don’t care about lives that don’t have a vote.

Straining Gnats and Swallowing Camels

Recently we highlighted our callous politicians and cultural elites including the media who have no compassion for children despite constantly bleating on about how caring they are. These are people who constantly attempt to position themselves as on the moral high ground yet have no qualms about supporting the murder of innocent and defenceless unborn children.

Well I read of this tragedy last week. The title begins with “Abortion Tragedy”, and some of my readers with more sanguine hopes for human nature and culture in NZ might be thinking at this point, “Oh wow, there are still some out there who see abortion as a tragedy.” Yeah nah. The rest of the headline reads, “Couple left to terminate pregnancy at 25 weeks after midwife misses two ultrasounds”.

So here is what happened in a nutshell. The couple’s midwife failed to read two early ultrasounds which would have ensured she identified problems with the pregnancy up to four weeks earlier. The tragedy (apparently) is not the abortion itself, but the fact that it would have been better to happen earlier, since abortions after 20 weeks are not advised.

The New Zealand Herald noted that the couple won an apology from the midwife. Talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels. Sure, the midwife did not do her job properly. The baby seemed to have abnormalities that are consistent with some kind of chromosomal abnormality (like Downs syndrome) based on what I can understand from the notes on the case. But these would-be parents have sacrificed their child because of his or her disability. They have essentially determined that there is no dignity in a disabled child, or that raising one would cramp their style. Where is their apology? They have demanded a midwife apologise for not doing a good job, when they have killed their weak and defenceless child for the crime of being abnormal, and then have the brazen audacity to complain that they should have had the information they needed to commit this killing four weeks earlier.

Child Sacrifice in NZ

Last year, politicians from all political persuasions voted for the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 which decriminalised abortion. 94 voted for decriminalisation and only 23 voted against it. You can see the roll of shame here. It includes all of NZ First (that bastion of conservatism), all of the Greens, as well as Act (David Seymour was at that stage their only MP), as well as 42 out of Labour’s 46 MPs and 33 out of National’s 52 MPs.

Voice for Life has recently written on the case of a baby being born in a New Zealand hospital after an unsuccessful late-term abortion. The baby was then “left gasping without medical assistance for two hours before dying.” Why was the baby aborted? The mother had “financial and housing issues”. And how many people in NZ want to adopt and cannot? Unfortunately, it sounds as if this is not even a one-off, as the healthcare student who passed this information on said that this sort of situation is not uncommon and that “in these situations, the baby is just left to die.”

Why is this not in the mainstream media? Why is there not outrage over this? Because the secular New Zealand elite does not care. They want to hide their blood-stained hands. Despite Ardern’s constant mothering and telling us to “be kind”, we are dealing with callous leaders, who having being warned about the possibility of this very thing happening, refused National MP Simon O’Connor’s Supplementary Order Paper that would have made it a legal requirement to provide appropriate medical care and treatment to a child born alive in the event of an unsuccessful abortion.

But Christ is king. He rules the earth, and these politicians who have shaken their fists at his law must repent or suffer his wrath. Already they are under his curse of judgment. Hands that shed innocent blood are one of the seven things the Lord hates according to Proverbs 6:17. Our God is the protector of the innocent and those behind this law and these actions will not go unpunished. All those involved in this depravity must kiss the Son in repentance or be prepared to be part of his footstall.

Yet even more is going on here. The secularist worships the material world rather than the Creator. These people have no hope. They destroy their offspring for the sake of their economic prosperity and convenience, just like the ancient Canaanites sacrificed their children to Molech. In this despicable evil lie the seeds of their own destruction. While they snuff out their future, we who worship Christ and look forward to his reign on this earth will be fruitful and multiply. We will inherit the earth.

In the meantime as we look forward to this day, let us stand up for the rights of the innocent. Go here to sign Voice for Life’s petition to repeal Labour’s Abortion Legislation Act.

Moral Confusion

One of the great marks of our time is our moral confusion and schizophrenia about the most basic issues of life. For all our technological prowess, we are moral babes.

A classic case is the issue of unborn babies. Are they human beings with all the dignity and rights that come with that, or are they just a bunch of cells that can be removed at will? The answer is…it depends.

Last year, one of the hosts of Breakfast, Hayley Holt, suffered from a miscarriage during one of the lockdowns. Quite rightly, Holt was devastated, and suffered greatly especially with the lack of support due to the lockdown. It was absolutely wonderful to see her co-hosts grieving with her and offering her words of hope and support.

What makes this incident so striking, is that a few months earlier, Holt interviewed Dr Alison Knowles, euphemistically termed ‘abortion practitioner’ (rather than cold-blooded baby killer) about the abortion law reform. In this interview Holt says in passing, “whilst it is a women’s right,” suggesting she herself might be pro-abortion. In the same segment, her colleague John Campbell, although congenial, does grill the pro-life interviewee in a way that slants the whole piece as supporting the law change.

An implication of this double-minded approach is that the value and worth of a human being (in this case an unborn one) is based on something extrinsic. An unborn child has rights and value to the extent his mother wishes him to live or not. But surely this is a reprehensible moral system. We know that in 2020 a four-week-old baby, Maree Kiwana-Makanihi Takuira-Mita Ngahere died as the result of a brain injury. She had been beaten multiple times by her father Jahcey Te Koha Aroha o te Raki Ngahere. Clearly, despite having Aroha in his name, Jahcey did not value his poor daughter. But in this case, we say that what he has committed is murder. Maree’s value is not based on whether her father or mother values her…at least it isn’t after she is born.