Displaying items by tag: human rights
16 times abortion advocates admitted that abortion kills babies
The 'clump of cells' argument is wearing pretty thin - especially when abortionists and other advocates agree that abortion takes the life of a fully human child.
The 'Tribunal' Game
When killing babies just isn't enough
It's strange how we can hold a distorted view of the world for so long. Like many of you, my ideas on different issues and philosophies have developed over the years. I've aged and learned to see things from new perspectives and have grown through the humiliations and trials of life. One place where my ideas have shifted greatly is in the realm of evil. When I was younger, the world seemed less evil to me. I believed that hell existed, but that not many people went there. I thought that place was probably quite empty except perhaps for Hitler, Jack the Ripper, and a demon or two.
Senate Inquiry into "Legislative Exemption" reports
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee (“LCAR Committee”) has now handed down its report into Legislative exemptions that allow faith-based educational institutions to discriminate against students, teachers and staff . The inquiry has been incredibly short- the motion referring the topic was only passed on 13 November. As expected (due to the preponderance of ALP and Greens committee members) the report recommends complete removal of religious freedom protections for faith-based schools relating to how those schools deal with same-sex attracted students. There is a strong dissenting report from Coalition Senators.
12 More Consequences of Redefining Marriage
Just over a year ago, during Australia's debate about changing the millenia-old meaning of marriage, I wrote an article called, "55 Consequences of Redefining Marriage". Unlike most of my articles, which are read by only a few hundred people, this one has been read by over 12,000, with several thousand shares. This is evidence of just how concerned ordinary people are about homosexual unions being called 'marriage' and the massive repercussions that has for everyone. That article was a simple list of 55 examples of discriminatory laws, legal challenges, policies and persecutions taken from 13 countries where same-sex 'marriage' has been legalised. Now, twelve months on from that day when Australians learned that the majority of their conferes had voted to redefine marriage, it seems like a good time to revisit the topic. How many of those consequences have come to pass in this country? Were our fears unfounded?
Exclusion-zones: High Court Submission
John Young has summarised the submission made by my legal team to the High Court of Australia, which we propose will show that abortion-facility exclusion zones are unconstitutional. The entire document is 24 pages long and can be read here on the High Court website, along with submissions from the Attorneys-General of the states and territories, and the Commonwealth Attorney-General - all of whom oppose us. American readers may be interested to note that SCOTUS and the Massachusetts bubble-zone case are mentioned in our submission on page 12. Careful readers will see that, on the day of my arrest, twenty police officers were briefed regarding my life advocacy within the exclusion zone. Twenty.
Justice for All - Including the Unborn
The late Professor of Law at the University of California, John Noonan, stated that " once or twice in a century an issue arises so far reaching in its consequences and so deep in its foundation that it calls on every person to take a stand". He contended that in 19th century America slavery assumed those proportions and that abortion has become one of these issues. Saint Teresa of Calcutta gave the following powerful message during her acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize - " the greatest destroyer of peace in the world is abortion. For if a society can allow a mother to kill her own child in her own womb, how can we tell other people not to kill each other.Any society which permits abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use any violence to get what they want".
I Wish Sidewalk Counsellors Had Been There When I Went For My Abortion
26 years ago, I had an abortion here in Melbourne. Even back then, it was quite easy to obtain an abortion. I told the abortionist I was about to buy a business so I couldn't have the baby. That was enough reason for the abortionist to classify my reason for the abortion as ‘mental health’. The business deal fell through a few weeks after the abortion. The irony of this didn’t dawn on me until many years later. I sacrificed my baby’s life for a business that never eventuated. There were no 'sidewalk' counsellors back then. 26 years later, I have suffered indescribable psychological trauma as a result of that abortion.
Alfie Evans, Infanticide and Our Damnable Indifference
Some commentators - even Christian ones - place children such as Alfie Evans firmly in the category of 'hopeless cases with unrealistic parents.' Bu as stated in my own article on the subject, Medical Tyranny and Parental Authority, this case is more about undermining parental authority than about whether or not Alfie's life could have been saved, or even extended had it been managed differently. For every high-profile case like Alfie's there are many unknown ones in existence around us, with parents left to wonder exactly where, along the way, they lost control over their children's medical care. - Ed.
High Court Upholds Rejection of Inter-State Vilification Orders
In a Federation like Australia, different jurisdictions (States and Territories) may have different rules on what amounts to “discrimination” or “vilification”, and how those things interact with religious freedom. One of the pressing issues here in recent years has been whether there will be a “race to the bottom” in freedom of speech on religious issues, with one jurisdiction in particular, Tasmania, raising deep concerns with a very broad prohibition on causing “offence” related to matters such as sexual orientation. Today the High Court of Australia, on appeal from NSW, has affirmed the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal that State and Territory “tribunals” (non-judicial panels usually used in discrimination issues) have no jurisdiction to impose penalties on residents of other Australian jurisdictions under their own local laws.