subscribe btndonate btn

Welcome

Not content with killing babies, traumatising parents and harvesting body parts, abortion providers are always looking at new strategies to inhibit the work of the pro-life community or to bolster their income. For of course, every baby saved from abortion means a slimmer pay-packet for the abortionist and his staff. In Australia, that could mean a loss of around $600 for a first-trimester abortion and up to $7700 for a late-term abortion. So it's little wonder that abortionists are eager to have special laws created in order to get women to keep those appointments. One example is the profusion of bubble-zone laws that have sprung up in recent years. In a western liberal democracy, we should be very concerned when the government enacts laws that target one specific group of people. Laws should be created solely to target behaviour, not groups or organisations. But exclusion-zone laws in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia do just that. 

Thursday, 15 February 2018 09:24

How Close to Broke Are You?

Written by

The poor and the middle class in the western world are not as far apart as some might imagine. There are many folk who stand at the Tavern's bars who would be very hard done to find a few hundred bucks at short notice. Many seemingly 'middle class' could be wiped out overnight by an unexpected expense. How are you doing? Close to skint occasionally?

It never ceases to amaze me that comments such as "keep your legs closed" or "keep it in your pants" still pop up under articles about abortion in this day and age. Last week's article by Richard Grant about Tanya Plibersek, and her calls for uniform laws to make abortion more readily available, attracted many comments like this. Obviously, I can see the hypocrisy and share the outrage of our readers, but honestly, can't we come up with more constructive comments that express the reality of the situation, and not just one crudely-worded aspect related to unplanned pregnancies? [The same goes for such comments as "They (abortion advocates) should be aborted" or calls for 'retrospective' abortions.]

Wednesday, 07 February 2018 22:18

"Do You Really Want to Do This?"

Written by

With bubble-zones in two Australian states and two territories, and abortion advocates lobbying for their introduction in other states, it’s important to realise just how many babies are saved through the intervention of sidewalk counsellors. This story is about one such baby, named Ava. Ava’s mama, Nancy, suffered for many years after her two abortions. She wasn't told there could be side-effects, such as severe emotional disturbances or subsequent miscarriages. Nancy is now a very strong advocate for life and is active on social media exposing abortion and encouraging mothers to choose life. 

Heaven help Australia's unborn children if the Labor Party wins government and Tanya Plibersek becomes Deputy Prime Minister. For in her article "Patchwork abortion laws a lottery for women", Tanya equates the brutal slaying of an unborn child by abortion to medical treatment for a hip replacement or a broken bone. Moreover, in a classic example of Orwellian doublespeak, Tanya stated that "it seems tragic that a woman would bring a child into the world for no reason other than she couldn't afford to have a termination". By these words, Tanya is portraying a God-given "good" {the bringing a child into the world) as an "evil" while portraying a satanic "evil" (the extermination of a child in his or her mother's womb) as a "good".

I have often sought to make the case for concerns about surrogacy. It is problematic on so many levels. Like the other Assisted Reproductive Technologies, our scientific and technological abilities to do things are outstripping and outpacing our moral reflection on them. And in the process, plenty of harm is being done.

A student Christian group at the University of Iowa has been reinstated as a registered student organisation by a US Federal District Court Judge, after previously having its status revoked by University authorities. The student group, Business Leaders in Christ (“BLinC”), had been penalised because it would not agree to appoint to its leadership a same-sex attracted student, who said that they would not undertake to comply with the group’s commitment to Biblical sexual values. The University claimed that this was a breach of its Policy on Human Rights, forbidding discrimination on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation. BLinC claimed, however, that the issue was not the student’s orientation, but their express refusal to modify their behaviour to accord with Biblical norms.