Category Archives: Abortion

Labor, progressive politics & Christian voters

By Spencer D Gear PhD

Full-term abortion is legal


Even a healthy late-term baby of a healthy mother can be aborted in Queensland.
(But only 5% of Queenslanders agree with abortion right up to birth)*

Labor’s treasury spokesman, Chris Bowen, in pulling out of the leadership challenge in the ALP, stated that an urgent fix was needed for the Party’s problem with religious voters:

“People of faith no longer feel that progressive politics cares about them. These are people with a social conscience who want to be included in the progressive movement,” he said.

“We need to tackle this urgently. I think this is an issue from the federal election that we simply haven’t yet focused on”.[1]

Labor’s values don’t coincide with people’s values.

It’s time for Labor to realise it can combine progressive social values that care for people (which I support) with biblical ethical values.

However, this means Labor will have to abandon these the following values:

Labor and abortion up to time of birth

Before the 2019 election,

The Australian Labor Party announced a policy that would have once been regarded as high-risk politics at the least.

It signalled that if it won office at the looming federal election, it would use federal funding arrangements for state-run hospitals to pressure them to provide abortions.

“This is a service that is not required by many Australian women, but for those who need it, it’s absolutely vital,” said Tanya Plibersek, Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Minister for Women. . . .

Abortion law is state-based and varies around the country. It is still illegal in New South Wales and South Australia unless doctors find the woman’s health is at risk. . . .

“I have no intention to overstep what the constitutional authority of the Commonwealth is on these matters,” Mr Morrison said (Tingle 2019).

Would this provide abortion right up until birth?

To my dying day, when God takes me to glory, I will never vote for the Labor Party that supports this culture of killing pre-born children right up until the time of birth.

Labor and euthanasia

Historic voluntary euthanasia laws have passed Victoria’s Upper House after a 28-hour marathon sitting, leaving the state on the brink of becoming the first in the country to legalise assisted dying for the terminally ill.

Key points:

  • Patients wanting to access the scheme would face two independent medical assessments before being able to obtain lethal drug
  • They must be over the age of 18, of sound mind, and have lived in Victoria for at least 12 months
  • The patient must administer the drug themselves, but a doctor could deliver the lethal dose in rare cases

In a dramatic end to days of debate, the Andrews Government’s voluntary assisted dying bill passed — with amendments — 22-18 votes in the 40-member Upper House.

It was a conscience vote for all MPs and some wept as they cast their vote (Willingham & Edwards 2017).

The Labor Party in WA has legalised euthanasia. The Department of Health in WA stated:

  • As of 1 July 2021, voluntary assisted dying is a choice available to eligible people under the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2019.

  • Voluntary assisted dying involves a process to access medication and to enable a person to legally choose the manner and timing of their death.

  • Put simply, voluntary assisted dying means that some adults can now ask for medical help to end their life if they have a disease or illness that is so severe it is going to cause their death and their suffering cannot be relieved in a manner tolerable to them.

  • The term ‘voluntary assisted dying’ emphasises the voluntary nature of the choice of the person and their enduring capacity to make this decision.[2]

As I write, Queensland Labor Government is on the verge of legalising voluntary assisted dying.

A Queensland Parliamentary Committee has recommended a bill for voluntary assisted dying (VAD) be passed.

Key points:

  • The legislation will be debated in Parliament next month (September 2021).
  • The committee says it supports considered requirements to allow for balance between accessibility and safeguards
  • Cherish Life says the legislation would have “irreparable damage” to an already struggling health system.

The legislation was introduced to Queensland Parliament by Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk in May (2021).

A committee has since been examining whether any changes to the bill were needed.

The legislation is expected to be debated next month (September 2021).

The move marks another step towards legalising voluntary assisted dying in Queensland.

MPs from both major parties will be granted a conscience vote.[3]

There is a further development on Tuesday, 14 September 2021:

There will be no changes to the state government’s signature voluntary assisted dying laws, set to be debated in – and expected to pass – Queensland Parliament this week.

It came after Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk remained coy on Monday(13 September 2021) when asked whether any changes would be made by her cabinet to the voluntary euthanasia bill.

Under the existing bill, adults would be able to end their lives under strict criteria – which includes them having a diagnosed eligible condition expected to cause death within a year.

Deputy Premier Steven Miles will announce on Tuesday (14 September 2021) that the government will not propose any changes to the bill, and he will urge MPs to not support changes potentially put forward by others.

Mr Miles will also outline to Parliament the guidelines for doctors at faith-based hospitals, such as Mater and St Vincent’s facilities, and how they will perform voluntary euthanasia procedures.

The guidelines for faith-based providers to be confirmed on Tuesday address the circumstances where patients may be transferred to another facility, and how facilities or institutions can inform the public they do not provide VAD dying services (Crockford & Dennien 2021).

To my dying day, when God takes me to glory, I will never vote for the Labor Party that supports this culture of killing people.

The major problem with voluntary assisted dying is that it violates a fundamental between people and God:

“Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Heb 9:27 NIV). People accepting VAD must be ready to face God in judgment.

clip_image003Whose responsibility is it to take life? God gives and takes life. It is not within the realm of a Labor government to introduce unbiblical teaching of killing people who have serious illnesses.

Labor and same-sex marriage

ABC News reported in 2015:

“What the Labor Party does with this resolution is we lay down the challenge to Mr Abbott and his Liberals — please give your members of parliament a free vote so we can make marriage equality a reality now,” he said.

Labor’s greatest conference moments

As part of the compromise deal, Mr Shorten pledged to move to legalise same sex marriage should he win the election.

“I promise that within 100 days of a Labor government being elected that I shall move in the parliament of Australia for marriage equality for Australians,” he said.

“Marriage equality is a simple, overdue change that sends a powerful message.”

Deputy leader Tanya Plibersek had been pushing for a binding vote but seconded Mr Shorten’s motion at the conference.

“I still hope we can have marriage equality by Christmas, but if this Parliament doesn’t pass marriage equality a Shorten-Labor government will within its first 100 days,” she said (Norman & Uhlman 2015).

The Scriptures clearly oppose homosexuality as a sin. See Romans 1:24-27 (NIV) and 1 Cor 6:9-11 (NIV). Therefore, Labor promotes sin which destroys families, society and causes people to lose their eternal salvation.

Again, I cannot vote for Labor with its support for outright wrongdoing (sin). In addition, the promotion of homosexual marriage violates God’s view of the heterosexual marriage union as his absolute for married life. See Gen 2:18, 24; Matt 19:5; and Eph 5:31.

The Australian Medical Association opposes euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Read its statement HERE.

Works consulted

Crockford, Tony & Matt Dennien 2021. The Sydney Morning Herald, “No changes to voluntary euthanasia bill, set to become law this week,” 14 September, accessed 14 September,

Norman, Jane & Chris Uhlmann 2015. ABC News, 26 July, accessed 14 September 2021,

Tingle, Laura 2019. ABC News, “Why conservatives are not making a fuss over Labor’s abortion policy,” 14 March, accessed 13 September 2021,


[1] Michael Koziol 2019. “Chris Bowen withdraws from Labor leadership race as Albanese and Chalmers deal firms,” The Sydney Morning Herald (online), 22 May. Available at: (Accessed 23 May 2019).

[2] Government of Western Australia, Department of Health, “Voluntary Assisted Dying,” accessed 13 September 2021,

[3] ABC News, “Voluntary assisted dying legislation recommended to be passed in Queensland Parliament,” 20 August, accessed 13 September 2021,

Copyright © 2021 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 14 September 2021.

Queensland Bill to legalise slaughter of innocent children in the womb – through abortion

A Laughing Handicapped Down Sy...

(Down’s Syndrome child courtesy

By Spencer D Gear PhD

As a concerned Queenslander and voter, I am distressed by the content of a Bill that proposes changes to Qld abortion laws and what that will mean for unborn children. The impact on children in the womb seems to be minimised or forgotten by pro-choice advocates in this debate.

1. What it does for women

Pro-abortion politicians and others are quick to promote what abortion means for the mother who is pregnant.

Deputy Queensland Premier, Jackie Trad, told ABC News, ‘I am unashamedly pro-choice…. What a woman decides to do with her body, in consultation with her doctor, does not belong in the criminal code…. I fully respect that my caucus colleagues in the Labor Party will have different views to me’.[1]

In this article, not a word was reported from Ms Trad about the unborn child and his/her rights. Was the unborn child deliberately eliminated from consideration in this killing of his/her life in this news story? Yes!

What would the Queensland Council of Civil Liberties (QCCL) state about the need for a change in the abortion legislation? Again, ABC News reported that QCCL considered Qld’s abortion laws to be ‘antiquated and draconian’. The President of QCCL, Michael Cope, wanted Qld to have the Victorian system where abortion is legal after 24 weeks gestation, but it requires approval from two medical practitioners. Cope said, ‘It’s time we had this discussion and it’s time we brought some certainty to women’s right to choose in this state,” he said’.[2]

What is the philosophy of the QCCL? Its view on civil liberties is: Concerning abortion, its ‘Abortion law reform media release’ stated that it

believes the current laws do not reflect the status of women in Queensland.

Mr Cope said, “The QCCL contends that the abortion decision is one to be determined in accordance with the conscience of the individual woman. Having said that, the QCCL also acknowledges that the unborn foetus has certain rights which should be recognised but which are less important than the living women’s rights.”

On this view as the pregnancy proceeds toward term the rights of the foetus increase.

Once the foetus has reached viability, the state has a legitimate interest in the potential life.

“The QCCL supports the Victorian model where there are no restrictions on a woman’s right to choose up to 24 weeks. After that the abortion can proceed if 2 doctors reasonably believes (sic) that it is appropriate in all the circumstances”.[3]

Notice the libertine, utilitarian ethic that the unborn foetus has fewer rights than that of the pregnant woman. Who said so? In my view, QCCL made that autonomous, libertine decision.

1.1 Abortion’s negative impacts on some women


1.2 Qld politicians influenced by Emily’s List

Jacki Trad’s support for abortion should not be surprising as she is a member of Emily’s List.[4] One of the beliefs of Emily’s List is ‘Choice’, by which it means:

We believe women must have control over their own bodies and choices in their lives.

Reproductive freedom empowers women and men to choose if, when and how to begin the important journey into parenthood, without fear of discrimination, coercion or violence.[5]

Here is a list of Queensland MPs who are members of Emily’s List:

  • Nikki Boyd – Pine Rivers
  • Leanne Donaldson – Bundaberg
  • Leeanne Enoch – Algester
  • Shannon Fentiman – Waterford
  • Jennifer Howard – Ipswich
  • Brittany Lauga – Keppel
  • Coralee O’Rourke – Mundingburra
  • Jackie Trad – South Brisbane[6]

ABC News reported that

Emily’s List supports progressive female Labor candidates trying to reach Parliament.

“We certainly have a few members of the State Government and they will be supporting the woman’s right to choose,” Lisa Carey from the group said.[7]

2. Politicians: What do Queenslanders want?

MPs, are you listening to ‘What Queenslanders Really Think About Abortion? If you were, you would not support the decriminalisation of abortion. This is what Galaxy Research found in a randomised telephone opinion poll of 400 Queensland voters, conducted from 6 – 8 May 2016, with 13 questions. The research found that a majority of Queenslanders do not want abortion decriminalised. Here are the results:

  • 55% agreed that abortion takes a human life;
  • 66% agreed that the unborn is a person with rights at 20 weeks gestation;
  • 84% agree that abortion harms women’s health;
  • 87% support a cooling off period of 2-3 days;
  • 94% agreed with independent counselling for someone seeking an abortion;
  • 72% opposed late term abortions past 13 weeks;
  • 79% support conscientious objection to abortion;
  • 85% were opposed to late term abortion past 20 weeks;
  • 75% supported parental consent for abortions on minors;
  • 45% opposed, 38% agreed, 17% were unsure of abortions for non-medical reasons;
  • 49% opposed and 43% agreed with the decriminalisation of abortion;
  • Views on the current law: 39% too restrictive, 42% about right, 11% not restrictive enough;
  • There was a potential swing of 6% against pro-abortion MPs.[8]

3. What people WANT should never be the standard

Politicians who bow to what people want will not be dealing with the God’s high standards of morality. Their pragmatism (doing what works) means that some don’t give a hoot about what is good, true, right and proper. What is the right view of what should be done to a child in the womb? See the discussion below when I deal with the teaching from Old and New Testaments that concerns an essential commandment to protect the unborn.

When politicians bow to God’s standards, then we will have a State and nation that is exalted by God himself. The sin of killing the unborn is a stench to God and is blight on our nation. It is a disgrace to any civilised country. See the discussion on Proverbs 14:34 (NIV) below.

4. The Bill to legalise slaying of unborn children

Rob Pyne, now independent (formerly Labor) MP for Cairns stated this about his proposed Bill to legalise abortion, according to ABC News,

Mr Pyne said he would compromise with MPs on when the cut-off should be.

“What I’m saying is a majority of MPs can surely see the current laws are not acceptable, and hopefully we can [arrive] at some compromise that will be acceptable at second reading stage,” the former Labor MP said.

“It’s not 1899, abortion should not be a crime. The world is changing very quickly and unfortunately our politicians aren’t”.

“I have not made any suggestion in relation to gestation periods — whether it be 24 weeks, 20 weeks or whatever — because my main concern is that this Parliament get together and pass law reform in this area, so we need something that a majority of MPs can support”.[9]

Here is a link to a copy of the private member’s Bill proposed by independent MP for Cairns, Rob Pyne, Abortion Law Reform (Woman’s Right to Choose) Amendment Bill 2016. Nowhere in the Bill does it state the time during gestation after which abortion should not take place. Although Mr Pyne expects some compromise by the other MPs at Committee stage, the fact is that he has placed no time limit in his Bill for abortion to not be available.

In introducing this Bill to decriminalise abortion in Qld, what will this mean for unborn children from conception to 9 months gestation? In its current form, unborn children, if abortion were chosen, would have their lives slaughtered by the will of the mother and doctor performing the abortion.

5. This will be what will happen for many Qld children now this Bill is legal.

(photo courtesy

What has Mr Pyne eliminated from the Qld Criminal Code to compose his Bill? From my assessment of the Draft Bill (link above), these seem to be the


224 Attempts to procure abortion[10]

Any person who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a woman, whether she is or is not with child, unlawfully administers to her or causes her to take any poison or other noxious thing, or uses any force of any kind, or uses any other means whatever, is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

225 The like by women with child[11]

Any woman who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, whether she is or is not with child, unlawfully administers to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or uses any force of any kind, or uses any other means whatever, or permits any such thing or means to be administered or used to her, is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

226 Supplying drugs or instruments to procure abortion[12]

Any person who unlawfully supplies to or procures for any person anything whatever, knowing that it is intended to be unlawfully used to procure the miscarriage of a woman, whether she is or is not with child, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.


In Queensland, there is currently a law where abortion (the killing of a child in the womb) is a crime. However, Section 282 of the Criminal Code allows for this defence:

282 Surgical operations and medical treatment[13]

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for performing or providing, in good faith and with reasonable care and skill, a surgical operation on or medical treatment of—

(a) a person or an unborn child for the patient’s benefit; or

(b) a person or an unborn child to preserve the mother’s life;

if performing the operation or providing the medical treatment is reasonable, having regard to the patient’s state at the time and to all the circumstances of the case.

(2) If the administration by a health professional of a substance to a patient would be lawful under this section, the health professional may lawfully direct or advise another person, whether the patient or another person, to administer the substance to the patient or procure or supply the substance for that purpose.

(3) It is lawful for a person acting under the lawful direction or advice, or in the reasonable belief that the advice or direction was lawful, to administer the substance, or supply or procure the substance, in accordance with the direction or advice.

(4) In this section—

health professional see the Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011, schedule 2.

medical treatment, for subsection (1)(a), does not include medical treatment intended to adversely affect an unborn child.

patient means the person or unborn child on whom the surgical operation is performed or of whom the medical treatment is provided.

surgical operation, for subsection (1)(a), does not include a surgical operation intended to adversely affect an unborn child.

In Queensland, abortion is a crime; however this section 282 of the Criminal Code provides a defence when the abortion was performed to preserve the mother’s life. When Cameron Dick MP was attorney-general for Qld in 2009, he wrote to Mr Neil Laurie, the Clerk of the Parliament, Queensland Parliamentary Service:

Amendments to section 282 of the Queensland Criminal Code were passed on 3 September 2009. Section 282 has been judicially interpreted to provide an excuse from criminal responsibility, to a person who performs a surgical termination in good faith, with reasonable care and skill, for the preservation of the mother’s life, having regard to the patient’s state at the time and to all the circumstances of the case.

The recent amendments to section 282 clarify that the operation of the section 282 excuse includes the provision of medical treatment and thus medical terminations.

These amendments clarify the law to protect doctors who prescribe medication to terminate a pregnancy, in the same way that doctors who perform surgical procedures are protected under the Criminal Code.[14]

This means that Section 282 has been interpreted by the courts to apply where the termination of a pregnancy is necessary to preserve the mother from serious danger to her life or her physical or mental health, if the continuing pregnancy would entail such effects. In such circumstances, the termination is not out of proportion to the danger to be prevented.

If the Rob Pyne private member’s Bill is presented to the Qld Parliament and there is a successful vote,

8. This will be what happens for many unborn Qld children if this Bill is passed.

(Photos of children killed in second trimester abortions)

clip_image005 clip_image007
(image courtesy 100 abortion pictures)

Contrary to what Ms Trad believes, the slaughter of children in the womb (see photos above) does belong in the Qld criminal code because it involves the killing of human lives.

9. I have written to Qld MPs about the change in abortion laws.

I asked: Please advise me what you will do to stop the slaughter of pre-born human beings. You should know that it is a medical fact that the child in the womb is a human being from the moment of conception. In case you have doubts, here is some evidence:

  • Leading obstetrician gynaecologist and medical researcher, Dr Landrum B. Shettles, says the real core of the debate over when life begins is ‘the clash between an ethic that makes the sanctity of human life an absolute and a new ethic that renders that life relative and sometimes expendable’ (Shettles with Rorvik 1983:107).
  • In 1970, in the midst of the United States’ abortion debate (it was legalised in 1973), the editors of the journal California Medicine (the official journal of the California Medical Association), noticed ‘the curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death’ (vol 113, no. 3, September, p. 67).

9.1 How some politicians responded

I wrote to a handful of Qld MPs, including my local MP, to ask their views on the new abortion law. The standard footer to the email replies received was something like, ‘This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and only for the use of the addressee’. Therefore, I cannot reveal the exact information from the various MPs and name them in this article. However, I will note that those who were against changing the law told me so and those who supported the change to be pro-abortion also were not backward in coming forward.

However, my local MP in the electorate of Murrumba, Chris Whiting, has not bothered to reply to my email about this critical legislation that involves the killing of human life – the slaughter of unborn children.

I wrote to one MP on Emily’s List and of course the response was in favour of abortion.

10. What drives the abortion agenda?

It doesn’t matter whether a person is an MP or an ordinary member of the public, there are reasons why a person supports or rejects abortion on demand. What could those justifications be?

The evidence before us, as presented in this article, is that worldviews[15] influence reality and that we are in ‘nothing short of a great Civil War of Values’ that is raging today around the world. Those are the words of James Dobson and he added that ‘two sides with vastly differing and incompatible worldviews are locked in a bitter conflict that permeates every level of society’.[16] It is raging today around the world. It is not only over the abortion agenda, but also a host of other values including the nature of government, terrorism to gain supremacy, homosexuality and transgender issues, truth or otherwise in the mass media, churches that subscribe to biblical fidelity while others abort biblical integrity.

10.1 What is a world view?

All of us have one. It may be defined as ‘a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic make-up of our world’ (Sire1988:17). James Sire explained that these are the seven rock-bottom questions that need to be answered to uncover the elements of a world view:

(a) What is prime reality – the really real?

This may include God, gods or the material cosmos.

(b) What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?

Here we seek answers to whether the world was created, is autonomous, chaotic, orderly, matter or spirit, whether our relationship to the world is subjective or objective (Sire 1988:18).

(c) What is a human being?

(d) What happens to a person at death?

(e) Why is it possible to know anything at all?

(f) How do we know what is right and wrong?

(g) What is the meaning of human history? (Sire 1988:18)

Throughout this article, it is evident that there are those with worldviews who support abortion or oppose it. Which worldviews are seen in the evidence from abortionists?

10.1.1 Relativism.

Have you ever heard the saying, ‘That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me’. That’s relativism in action. Here we see it with abortionists who admit that life in the womb is not that of a human being, so to kill that life is acceptable for them, even through it is not for me as I consider the scientific and biblical evidence supports human life in the womb, commencing with conception.

This manifests itself with,

10.1.2 No discussion of right or wrong.

God’s absolute of, ‘You shall not murder’ (Exod 20:13; Matt 5:21), is not on the lips of abortionists and pro-abortion politicians. This absolutistic value is promoted by those who oppose abortion.

10.1.3 Reason supersedes revelation

When a person reasons that life in the womb is not as important as life outside the womb (as in the QCCL statement), that person is demonstrating that human reason usurps God’s authority of, ‘You shall not murder’. A person who supports biblical revelation is not necessarily a person who opposes the use of reason, but generally is one who opposes autonomous reason in determining value judgments.

For those who like to think a little more deeply about these issues, Christian philosopher Doug Groothuis has written an excellent article for your consideration. Be warned! It does contain some philosophical explanations, ‘Christianity and autonomous reason: Drawing an important distinction’ (Groothuis 2015).

10.1.4 Humanism

Here I refer to humanism as ‘the overall attitude that human beings are of special value; their aspirations, their thoughts, their yearnings are significant. There is as well an emphasis on the value of the individual person’ (Sire 1988:74-75). This is evident in the pro-abortion perspective of Jackie Trad, deputy Premier: ‘What a woman decides to do with her body, in consultation with her doctor, does not belong in the criminal code’.[17]

There is a more aggressive secular humanism that promotes these values in Humanist Manifesto II and its naturalism or anti-supernaturalism. I have not seen or heard this so far in the mass media promotion of the new abortion Bill in Qld. However, I would not be surprised to see it emerge as Christians become more outspoken against the Bill and the issues heat up and are exposed.

10.1.5 The nature of human beings

Surely the nature of the one in the womb who is being killed should occupy a prominent place in this discussion. That is not so. To date, I’ve read no pro-abortionist discussions of when human life begins, refuting the biological evidence that human life begins at conception, and the nature of the person in the womb who is being killed through abortion.

10.2 God’s absolutes guarantee justice

I refer you to my article, God’s absolutes are absolutely true. What is the outworking of this in a nation?

I heard an Indian Christian who was visiting Brisbane and spoke only a few kilometres from where I live. He has written a magnificent book to demonstrate how Scripture has been the foundation of healthy Western nations. He admitted this health is waning because of our movement away from the biblical foundation.

I’m speaking of Vishal Mangalwadi and his publication, The Book that made your world: How the Bible created the soul of western civilization (2011).

image courtesy Thomas Nelson; Vishal Magalwadi blog)

He shows how the Bible has created the foundation of western civilization. His first chapter is: ‘The soul of Western civilization’. In his preface, he wrote:

A cursory glance may give an impression that this is a book about the Bible.  Those who actually read it will know that this is about great literature and great art; great science and liberating technology; genuine heroism and nation building; great virtues and social institutions.  If you have a zillion pieces of a puzzle, would you begin assembling them into one picture, without knowing what that picture is supposed to look like?  The Bible created the modern world of science and learning because it gave us the Creator’s vision of what reality is all about.  This is what made the modern West a reading and thinking civilization.  Postmodern people see little point in reading books that do not contribute directly to their career or pleasure.  This is a logical outcome of atheism, which has now realized that the human mind cannot possibly know what is true and right.  This book is being published with a prayer that it will help revive a global interest in the Bible and in all the great books (Mangalwadi 2011:XXI).

What Mangalwadi noted about the impact of the Bible and truth on a culture is as true for my country of Australia as it is for the United States, Germany, the Central African Republic or Argentina. He asked:

What happens to a culture that is clueless about what is true, good, and just? Pilate answered that question when he declared: ‘I have the power to crucify you or set you free.’ When we believe truth is unknowable, we rob it of any authority. What is left is brute power wielding arbitrary force. Whether a person or an ethnic minority is guilty or innocent becomes irrelevant. His or her right to life depends exclusively on the whims of whoever has power. Any nation that refuses to live under truth condemns itself to live under sinful man (Magalwadi 2011:392).

And this is from a man, Vishal, who was born and raised and lives in India, where he has seen the destructive influences of another world view.

The more Australian politicians get back to the foundation of Scripture, the healthier this Aussie nation will be. If they continue down the present path we are doomed. It is because …

10.3 Righteousness (God’s justice) exalts a nation

This is based on Proverbs 14:34 (NIV), ‘Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people’. God’s message is straightforward regarding any nation.

  • When a nation practises God’s righteousness in national actions or in person to person relationships, the nation will be exalted in its reputation and in its impact for God and justice.
  • However, if sinful government decisions are made and people act sinfully towards one another, the nation will be condemned.

As demonstrated in this article, an Australian who deliberately kills living children in the womb (with government permission) is practising unrighteousness as God’s commandment is: ‘You shall not murder’ (Exodus 20:13) and that law of the nation is broken. The ESV footnote for this verse indicates that ‘The Hebrew word also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence’. This verse is cited by Jesus in Matt 5:21; 19:18, and by Paul in Rom 13:9. The Matt 5:21 statement by Jesus adds a new dimension to the commandment in Ex 20:13, ‘You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, “You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment”’ (Matt 5:21 NIV). Therefore, the application is that the state of Queensland, should it authorise the murder of unborn human beings, will be subject to God’s judgment. God’s justice for the nation that breaks his law is his judgment. We as a State cannot prosper when we break God’s law in relation to murder of human beings in the womb.

John Gill (AD 1697-1771)[18] was a Baptist biblical expositor at Spurgeon’s church about a century before Spurgeon. Gill’s exposition of Prov 14:34 is:


(Image courtesy Facebook)

Righteousness exalts a nation,…. Administered by the government, and exercised by subjects towards one another; doing justice between man and man: this exalts a nation, as it did the people of Israel, while practised among them; this sets a people above their neighbours, and high in the esteem of God and men; and is attended with privileges and blessings, which make a nation great and honourable. Some understand this of aims deeds, or beneficence to the poor; which, both in the Hebrew and Greek languages, is called righteousness; See Gill on Matthew 6:1. It may be put for the whole of true religion, which is an honour to a nation, where it obtains; and is what makes the holy nation, and peculiar people, so truly illustrious; and particularly the righteousness of Christ makes such who are interested in it really great and noble, and promotes and exalts them to heaven and happiness;

but sin is a reproach to any people; where vice reigns, iniquity abounds, profaneness, impiety, and immorality of all sorts prevail, a people become mean and despicable; they fall into poverty and contempt; are neither able to defend themselves, nor help their neighbours, and so are despised by them. The word rendered “reproach” most commonly signifies “mercy” or goodness; and some render it, “and the mercy of a people is a sin offering” ; or as one: or it is so “to the nations”; it is as good as a sacrifice for sin, of which the word is sometimes used, or better, more acceptable to God, “who will have mercy, and not sacrifice”, Matthew 9:13; even beneficence and kindness to the poor, the same with righteousness, as before. I think it may be as well rendered, “the piety” or religion “of the nations is sin”; it being idolatry, as Aben Ezra observes: such is the religion of the antichristian nations, who worship idols of gold and silver; and though they may afflict themselves, as Gersom remarks of the idolatrous nations, with fasting and penance, with whippings and scourgings; yet it is nothing else but sin, will worship, and superstition.[19]

The warning to Queensland and Australia is that when this nation promotes unrighteousness (e.g. killing children in the womb) that is contrary to God’s revelation in Scripture, Australia brings on itself a reproach. Anti-Christian legislation by the Queensland government will bring the rebuke of God’s judgment. It is not for me to determine how that will happen in Qld., but we do have a profound example of it with the nation of Israel.

In Joshua’s day, this was the result of practising unrighteousness:

For if you turn back and cling to the remnant of these nations remaining among you and make marriages with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know for certain that the Lord your God will no longer drive out these nations before you, but they shall be a snare and a trap for you, a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good ground that the Lord your God has given you (Joshua 23:12-13 ESV).

Jeremiah, the prophet, proclaimed this message to Israel: ‘Thus says the Lord: “What wrong did your fathers find in me that they went far from me, and went after worthlessness, and became worthless?”’ (Jer 2:5 ESV). Could anything be clearer than Numbers 14:43 (ESV), ‘For there the Amalekites and the Canaanites are facing you, and you shall fall by the sword. Because you have turned back from following the Lord, the Lord will not be with you’.

10.4 The God of justice is revealed

To describe how righteousness and justice are synonymous terms, see my article: Righteousness and justice for the Christian.

10.4.1 Justice and righteousness

clip_image011In English, righteousness and justice are 2 different words but in the Hebrew OT and Greek NT that is not so as there is only one word root behind both ‘righteousness’ and ‘justice’.

The word for righteousness, dikaiosune,[20] means ‘uprightness, justice as of a judge’. Examples include ‘enforce justice’ (Heb 11:33), ‘judge justly’ (Acts 17:31; Rev 19:11); ‘righteousness, uprightness as the compelling motive for the conduct of one’s whole life: hunger and thirst for uprightness’ (Matt 5:6) [Arndt & Gingrich 1957:195, emphasis in original].

So the meaning of this word is that God always does what is correct/right and God determines the standard of what is right.
These verses teach us this meaning of righteous/justice (emphasis added):

  • Gen 18:25 (ESV), ‘Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?’
  • Deut 32:4 (ESV), ‘all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he’.
  • Isa 45:19 (ESV), ‘I the Lord speak the truth; I declare what is right‘.
  • Paul tells us that God’s sending Christ as a sacrifice for the punishment for sins in Rom 3:25-26 (ESV), it ‘was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’.

This is reason for us to praise God that in everything he does; all his ways are righteous. They are just; there is no injustice in Him. Question: How does God’s justice harmonise with the killing of all the inhabitants of Ai (Joshua 8:24 ESV)?

When we examine a text such as Genesis 15:16, [4] we see what God warned Abraham what would happen: ‘And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete’ (ESV). The promise was that the time of the iniquity of the Amorites ‘was not yet complete’ after the Israelites left the nation of Egypt. The implication of that Scripture is that when the wickedness of the Canaanites had reached God’s limit of guilt or restraint, God would remove them from the land.

That is what he did to Jericho and Ai (Joshua 8:18-26). He did it with Makkedah (Josh 10:28), Lachish (Josh 10:32); Eglon (Josh 10:34-35); Debir (Josh 10:38-39), and the cities of the Negev and the Shepheliah (Josh 10:40). You can read about God’s punishment of Hazor, Madon, Shimron and Achspaph (Josh 11:10-14). It happened previously to Sodom & Gomorrah. You can read about what God did with his punishment of other cities according to Judges 19 and Judges 20.

When we engage in the plain reading of Scripture, we cannot get past the fact that when degenerate idolatry and brazen moral depravity developed in nations, God had to remove them so that the theocratic kingdom of Israel could settle in those regions.

I do not like the deplorable loss of life and atrocities that happened in these nations, but it would be much worse if these depraved activities were allowed to continue among God’s people.

How does God’s justice harmonise with this carnage? God warns about the consequences of sin. If people and nations continue to act against God’s instructions, he will so what is right and bring punishment. He warns before he does it. ‘Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?’ (Gen 18:25). The lesson is this: Anyone can live this life as he/she wishes, but there are consequences – God’s consequences – when we give God the shaft and follow Frank Sinatra’s dictum, ‘I did it my way‘.

Since righteousness exalts a nation, we know this refers to the Judeo-Christian’s God of the universe.

By the righteousness and justice of God we mean that phase of God’s holiness which is seen in his treatment of the creature. Repeatedly, these qualities are ascribed to God (2 Chron. 12:6; Ezra 9:15; Neh. 9:33; Isa. 45:21; Dan. 9:14; John 17:25; 2 Tim. 4:8; Rev. 16:5). In virtue of the former [the righteousness of God] He has instituted moral government in the world, imposed just laws upon the creatures, and attached sanctions thereto. In virtue of the latter, he executes his laws through the bestowal of rewards and punishments. The distribution of rewards is called remunerative justice, and is mentioned in such Scriptures as the following: Deut. 7:9-13; 2 Chron. 6:15; Ps. 58:11; Matt. 25:21; Rom. 2:7; Heb. 11:26. The infliction of punishment is called punitive justice [the expression of divine wrath] and is mentioned in such Scriptures as these: Gen. 2:17; Exod. 34:7; Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 1:32; 2:8, 9; 2 Thess. 1:8 (Thiessen 1949:129-130).

11. How to choose a world view

(Religious practices will tie closely to a religion’s world view. Image courtesy Wikipedia.)

What are the best criteria for determining a world view with clout and pervasive influence? These are not original with me and are suggested by Norman Geisler and William Watkins (1984 233-241). Let’s begin with

11.1 How not to choose a world view

11.1.1 You cannot read everything

Read enough to make a decision. You need to ‘stop reading and start deciding’ (Geisler & Watkins 1984:234)

11.1.2 Beauty is only skin deep

Don’t look to what you like as a world view, but to that which meets your total needs.

11.1.3 What works is not always true

Lies work for many, but they are not the truth. ‘If a world and life view is true it will work in life (if properly understood and applied)’ (Geisler & Watkins 1984:234.

11.1.4 The majority can be wrong

11.1.5 Difficulty should not prompt quick rejection

11.1.6 The unexplained is not necessarily unexplainable

11.1.7 Absurdity does not guarantee truth

11.2 How to choose a world view

11.2.1 A world view must be consistent

‘If contradiction is a sign of falsity, then non-contradiction (or consistency) is a necessity for truth’ (Geisler & Watkins1984:236).

11.2.2 A world view must be comprehensive

11.2.3 A world view must be liveable

11.2.4 A world view must be consistently affirmable

A test for truth of a statement can be applied to this world view claim: ‘No statement is true if, in order to make it, the opposite would have to be true’. So, to test if statements are self-defeating, Geisler & Watkins (1984:240-241) provide these self-defeating examples:

(1) ‘Reality cannot be known’;

(2) ‘Be skeptical about everything’;

(3) ‘Reality is not rational’;

(4) ‘All truth is relative’;

(5) ‘Nothing exists’;

(6) ‘Nothing of value exists’;

(7) ‘Nothing can produce something’;

(8) ‘Everything is based on something else’.

The conclusion is that these principles can be applied to various worldviews and that ‘when one takes the truths which cannot be successfully denied, they can be constructed into a valid world view…. Truth is literally undeniable; however, truth is not always obvious. Only those who seek it find it’ (Geisler & Watkins 1984:241).

12. Abortion decriminalised in Qld

After two days of debate in the Qld Parliament, “Abortion has been decriminalised in Queensland” (SBS News, 18 October 2018). This means:

Both the government and opposition had granted their MPs a free vote ahead of the debate…. Under the changes, abortion will be removed from the criminal code and made a health issue, allowing women to terminate pregnancies up to 22 weeks’ gestation.

Terminations after 22 weeks will be allowed with the approval of two independent doctors.

The changes also establish safe zones around clinics and medical facilities offering the procedure to stop staff and patients being harassed by anti-abortion activists (SBS News, 18 October 2018).

Safe zones have been established: ‘”Safe access zones” of 150 metres will also be established around termination and fertility clinics to prevent protesters approaching and hassling women and their families’ (ABC News, Brisbane,Qld., 18 October 2018).

13. Conclusion

Rob Pyne MP presented a private member’s Bill to the Queensland parliament for consideration that wiped abortion from the criminal code. It allowed abortion right up until the time of birth. He said that he was prepared to negotiate with other MPs as to the period of gestation when abortion was allowed. The deputy Premier, Jackie Trad, as a member of Emily’s List, has publicly declared in the media that she will support the abortion Bill, claiming that what a woman decides to do with her body, in consultation with her doctor, should not belong in the criminal code. The QCCL claimed this was a conscience decision for the woman.

My article here shows that another person has been ignored by the Bill, Trad and other MPs; that is the unborn child who is a human being from conception. Photographs demonstrated the beauty of a child whose life is saved and of children in the womb who had been slaughtered by abortion.

It was shown from a survey that the majority of Queenslanders believe abortion takes a human life, but that the majority should not determine whether abortion is legal or not.

It was shown what Rob Pyne has deleted from the criminal code and it was validated that the life of the mother is protected in the existing legislation. Thus, there is no need for a change of law. This change is designed to satisfy the promoters of abortion and not those who want to save the lives of the unborn. A different ethic is being promoted and the contrast is stark between abortion promoters and those who want to save the lives of the unborn.

What is being promoted here? It was shown that this was a world view issue where the pro-abortionists had no respect for human life in the womb and those who were anti-abortion most often promoted a Christian world view and its ethical requirements. “You shall not murder” was the Christian response against abortion but that value was not endorsed by the abortionists. It was shown how God’s righteousness (i.e. justice) exalts a nation. A nation that promotes the killing of the unborn is not practising justice and the nation will suffer God’s judgment.

Some of the elements in choosing a world view were examined alongside what is needed in a satisfactory world view.

Eventually, the pro-abortionists won the day and it’s now legal, under certain circumstances – with the approval of two doctors – to abort a child right up to the time of birth. This is an abominable practice, in my view.

See my other articles related to this topic:

clip_image013 Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective

clip_image013[1] Politicians, morality and a just society

This article is dedicated to the people who were robbed of life in the last few decades. These include the unborn, the weak, and the elderly because of the ‘madness, selfishness, lust and greed’ of our societies (Schaeffer & Koop 1979, dedication).

14. Works consulted

Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.[21] Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Balmer, R 2002. Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism. Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox Press.

Geisler, N L & Watkins, W D 1984. Perspectives: Understanding and Evaluating Today’s World Views. San Bernardino, California: Here’s Life Publishers Inc.

Groothuis, D 2015. Christianity and autonomous reason: Drawing an important distinction, February 23. Douglas Groothuis Ph.D. Available at: (Accessed 22 May 2016).

Mangalwadi, V 2011, The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Noebel D A 2001. The Battle for Truth. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers.

Schaeffer, F. A.  & Koop, C. E. 1979. Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company.

Shettles, L. B. with D. Rorvik 1983. Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Sire, J 1988. The Universe Next Door: A Basic World View Catalog, b updated & exp. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Thiessen, H C 1949. Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

(Late term abortion, courtesy priestsforlife)

15.  Notes

[1] ABC News 2016. Queensland abortion bill: Rob Pyne says procedure ‘should not be a crime’ (online), 10 May. Available at: (Accessed 19 May 2016).

[2] Ibid.

[3] No date was given for this media release, but it had to be in May 2016 after the release of Rob Pyne MP’s private member’s bill. Available at: (Accessed 19 May 2016).

[4] This is confirmed on Emily’s List 2015. ‘Our State & Territory MPs’ (online). Available at: (Accessed 19 May 2016).

[5] Emily’s List 2015. ‘What we believe in’ (online). Available at: (Accessed 19 May 2016).

[6] Emily’s List 2015. ‘Our State & Territory MPs’ (online). Available at: (Accessed 19 May 2016).

[7] ABC News, loc cit., ‘Queensland abortion bill’.

[8] Galaxy Research 2016. ‘What Queenslanders really think about abortion’. Available at: (Accessed 19 May 2016).

[9] ABC News, loc cit, ‘Queensland abortion bill’.

[10] Queensland Consolidated Acts, Criminal Code 1899 – SECT 224. Available at: (Accessed 17 May 2016).

[11] Queensland Consolidated Acts, Criminal Code 1899 – SECT 225. Available at: (Accessed 17 May 2016).

[12] Queensland Consolidated Acts, Criminal Code 1899 – SECT 226. Available at: (Accessed 17 May 2016).

[13] Queensland Consolidated Acts, Criminal Code 1899 – SECT 282. Available at: (Accessed 19 May 2016).

[14] Hon Cameron Dick 2009. Queensland Government (online), Attorney-general and Minister for Industrial Relations, Letter to Mr Neil Laurie, The Clerk of the Parliament, 21 December. Available at: (Accessed 19 May 2016).

[15] The Merriam-Webster dictionary (2016. s v worldview) and American Heritage Dictionary (2016. s v worldview) spell the word as ‘worldview’; Oxford dictionaries (2016. s v world view) and Cambridge dictionaries online (2016. s v world view) spell the word as ‘world view’; spells it as world-view (2016. s v world-view).

[16] These are James Dobson’s words which he applied specifically to North America, in Balmer (2002:178)

[17] ABC News 2016, loc cit, Queensland abortion bill.

[18] Gill’s lifespan details are available at CCEL, (Accessed 21 May 2016).

[19] Gill’s Exposition: Proverbs 14 (online). Available at: (Accessed 19 May 2016).

[20] The last Greek letter, ‘e’, in dikaiosune is eta, seventh letter of the Greek alphabet, which is transliterated into English as ‘e’ with an ellipse. However, the html of this website converts letters with an ellipse into question marks. Therefore, I have used ‘e’ as the transliteration, but that is also the transliteration of the fifth letter of the Greek alphabet, epsilon. That is confusing but I am left with no alternative. Since ‘o’ with an ellipse is the transliteration of omega, the last letter of the Greek alphabet, I have chosen to use a transliteration of ‘w’, which was used by some earlier Greek NT scholars. Wikibooks states, ‘Sometimes unofficially it is rendered as w (inspired by the shape of the small letter)’ (2014. S v Modern Greek / Lession 4x).

[21] This is ‘a translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörtbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur’ (4th rev & augmented edn 1952) (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:iii).

Copyright © 2020 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 07 December 2020.

Fancy Blend Lines Royalty-Free Stock Image - StoryblocksFancy Blend Lines Royalty-Free Stock Image - StoryblocksFancy Blend Lines Royalty-Free Stock Image - Storyblocks

Can Labor change to religious values?

ALP logo 2017.svg

(Logo, Australian Labor Party –, Public Domain, courtesy Wikipedia)

By Spencer Gear PhD

This article was first published as, Can a Labor leopard change its spots? On Line Opinion (19 September 2019).

Can the Labor Party win back voters lost at the last election through changes of policies? Or will religious people see it as a suck up for political gain and not for genuine religious commitment?

Before the 18 May 2019 election, the shadow treasurer and immovable Chris Bowen reiterated: ‘If you don’t like our policies, don’t vote for us’. Many took his advice and Labor lost the election.

After the election he backed off a bit, ‘I have noticed as I have been around during the election campaign and even in the days since … how often it has been raised with me that people of faith no longer feel that progressive politics cares about them,’ he told reporters in Sydney’. He got that one right.

1.  Considered changes

The defeat influenced Mark Butler, shadow minister for climate change & energy, to speak out, ‘Everything is up for review’. Everything? Really? Does that include Labor’s radical pro-Greens, left wing agenda on abortion, euthanasia and religious freedom?

Labor frontbencher and communications’ spokesperson, Michelle Rowland, stated: ‘I don’t think it’s lost on anyone that there was clearly an issue with Labor and people of faith at the last election.’ She added: ‘There is a sense that we didn’t get it right’ – about religious views.

2.  ALP policies and people of faith

In my understanding of a Christian world and life view – informed by Scripture – Labor needs radical changes in these values but I can’t see it happening because the libertarian left-wing seems to dominate policy content. The issues surround …

(a) Abortion;

(b) Voluntary, assisted dying; i.e. voluntary, active euthanasia,

(c) Freedom of religion, and

(d) LGBTIQ ‘equality’, including homosexual marriage.

3.  Clash with Labor’s policies

How is it possible for these Labor policies to be accommodated with religious views when they are so opposed to some religious views? These Labor policies include:

(a) Improve access to affordable, legal ‘surgical and medical terminations across Australia, including decriminalisation in all States and Territories and the provision of abortion in public hospitals’ (ALP National Platform, No. 102),

Image result for image of Nembutal public domain(image courtesy OAK, public domain)

(b) ‘People must have dignity and choice at the end of life … not only in terms of where they wish to die, but when to die’ (No. 42).

(c) ‘Labor believes no faith, no religion, no set of beliefs should ever be used as an instrument of division or exclusion, and condemning anyone, discriminating against anyone, vilifying anyone is a violation of the values we all share’ (No. 239).

This is where Labor went in her antagonism to religious freedom. Senator Penny Wong, leader of the Opposition in the Senate, in 2018 introduced a Private Senator’s Bill to try to restrict power of ‘religious schools to discriminate against same sex attracted students’.

(d) ‘Labor is proud to have led the fight for marriage equality’, thus making it ‘a reality for LGBTIQ Australians on 9 December 2017. Labor welcomes and celebrates the achievement’ (No. 240).

Is Labor whistling in the political wind if it promotes those four policies and yet expects religious people to become members and vote for them? Let’s check out how religious values can be at odds with Labor’s pushing a progressive and libertine agenda.

4.  Religious values clash with ALP policies

(a) The Roman Catholic Church’s position is: ‘I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral’, Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995. Here he referred to abortion, euthanasia and the destruction of human embryos in medical research. The Vatican opposes (a) in the Labor Platform.

Cherish Life Australia, The Australian Christian Lobby, Family Voice Australia, Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church, and other Christian denominations oppose abortion and euthanasia.

Crows[1] and flying foxes (bats)[2] are protected but not unborn babies and the elderly.

(b) Whose right is it to murder any person from conception to the end of natural life?

For Bible-believing Christians, it is not a government’s responsibility to murder unborn children, the aged, or the terminally ill.

“You [Lord God] made all the delicate, inner parts of my body
and knit me together in my mother’s womb.
Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex!
Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it.
You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,
as I was woven together in the dark of the womb (Psalm 139:13-16).

A human being, made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27; James 3:9) is one who is defined by pronouns such as ‘my’, ‘me’, and ‘I’, as references to a person in the womb – a person murdered in an abortion.

Unborn babies are called ‘children,’ the same word used of infants and young children (Luke 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16; Exodus 21:22), and sometimes even of adults (1 Kings 3:17).

The most startling affirmation of the sanctity of prenatal life is the incarnation of Jesus Christ. His personal history on earth began, not when he was ‘born of the Virgin Mary’, but when he was ‘conceived by the Holy Spirit’ (see Matt.1:18, 20).

The beginning of life is confirmed by the medical profession. Dr Micheline Matthews-Roth, research associate of Harvard University Medical School affirmed ‘it is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception’.

As for shortening an adult’s life through euthanasia or assisted suicide, whose right is it to do that? The biblical position is:

Image result for clipart small globe  Creator God is the source of life (Acts 17:28) and death (‘The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. Praise the name of the Lord’ – Job 1:20-21).

Image result for clipart small globe  ‘Although it may sometimes appear to be an act of compassion, killing is never a means of caring’. ‘Don’t be interested only in your own life, but care about the lives of others too’ (Phil 2:4). Instead of killing the elderly and unwell, the Christian responsibility is to care for them. Promotion of increased resources for palliative care should be the replacement for euthanasia.

No matter how many emotional examples are given about suffering at the end of life, whose right is it to choose the end of life? It belongs to God.

(c) Attack on values of religious organisations, including churches, social welfare organisations, free speech, hospitals and schools played a part in the 2019 election.

white ruled notebook on blue denim textile(image courtesy Rachel Lynette French)

After the election, commentator Miranda Divine told The Catholic Weekly (20 May 2019) that those dubbed by Morrison as the ‘quiet Australians’ were a key factor in the outcome.

Religious Australians were ‘sick of being derided’ by Shorten, Plibersek and Wong who treated them as ‘morally inferior’ since they weren’t in favour of a radical social and socialist agenda.

She continued: ‘Playing in the background was the Israel Folau saga, which Shorten gratuitously dragged into the campaign as a weapon against Morrison, trying to portray his devout Christianity as bigotry’.

Divine demonstrated how the booth by booth swings in Western Sydney told the story of the faith vote.

The Australian Christian Lobby’s managing director Martyn Iles confirmed a clear mandate was given to Morrison to legislate for religious freedom and to resist radical social policies. He contended that this result in key marginal electorates was partly on account of Labor’s policies which undermine religious freedom, parents’ rights, and pushed a radical social agenda out of step with mainstream Australian values’.

(d) Christianity’s and Islam’s views on sexuality are radically different to Labor’s.

· There is no need for Jesus to state, ‘You shall not commit homosexual acts’ as he promoted the biblical norm of heterosexuality: ‘That’s why a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. The two will become one’ (Matthew 19:5). The New Testament further emphasises the ‘shameful desires’ of lesbian and male homosexual acts that prevent a person from entering the kingdom of God (Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11), a la Israel Folau. There was jubilation in Parliament in 2017 with the passing of the same-sex marriage Bill but that’s not the way it was in the courts of heaven.

  • The verses cited above also include the sexually immoral and adulterers who will not inherit God’s kingdom.
  • The Muslim condemnation of homosexuality is based on the ‘story of Lot (prophet Lut) and his family and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is mentioned in the Qur’an, verses 7:80, 11:77, 15:59, 21:71, 26:161, 27:55, 29:26, 37:133, and 54:33’.

That’s the biblical view but not that of liberal churches such as Gosford NSW Anglican.

5.  Labor’s wishful thinking

Labor recognised the problem with people of faith. It can claim ‘everything is up for review’ but with the evidence above, I can’t see that happening because of the ingrained left-wing, anti-biblical agenda on social issues.

Then add the hard-line, pro-abortion women in politics of Emily’s List – mainly in the Labor Party.

Australian Catholic University academic, Kevin Donnelly, said he believed Labor and the Greens ‘were in denial that they lost votes over religious freedom and parent’s rights in education’. Morrison was seen as a rational person and ‘the vast majority of people who are not politically-correct and ideologically-driven’ saw his statements on ‘issues such as the environment and sexuality’. Thirty percent of parents have their children in private education.

According to the 2016 National Church Life Survey, ‘41 per cent of church-attending Christians voted for the Liberal-National Party, and 24 per cent voted for Labor’.

If Labor wants to re-engage with the religious, it won’t happen through fake communication to gain political points. Where are the genuine Christians, Muslims and Hindus within Labor?

Patrick Parkinson noted that John Black, a former Labor senator and demographer, stated that ‘Queensland has a substantial number of religiously active voters across numerous marginal constituencies. Black notes that of the top 25 seats ranked for those active in religion, 15 are in Queensland’.

So, there are enough religiously active voters to tip an election towards parties that have policies that genuinely reflect the religious view of the electorates. Labor in 2019 did not satisfy those criteria.

I’ll believe Labor is serious about promoting religious values when I see more people like The Honourable Shayne Neumann MP (Labor Federal Member for Blair, Qld), an active member of a Baptist Church, promoted in ALP ranks. I’m yet to be convinced their values synchronise with a biblical world view.

Christians such as firebrand Senator Amanda Stoker (Queensland) and Qld MP, the Honourable Fiona Simpson MP, have been endorsed by the LNP.

6.  Notes

[1] See: (Accessed 12 September 2019).

[2] ‘It is important to remember that state governments, irrespective of national listing status, consider all species of flying-fox to be protected native species’. Available at: (Accessed 12 September 2019).

Copyright © 2019 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 13 September 2019

Vector graphics of decorative floral designVector graphics of decorative floral designVector graphics of decorative floral designVector graphics of decorative floral designVector graphics of decorative floral designVector graphics of decorative floral design

Thou shalt not kill / murder

Breaking the sixth commandment

By Spencer D Gear PhD

How should Christians respond to terminal illness, suffering and euthanasia? How should a government respond to a request for euthanasia with this kind of facial disease?

Should this heart-breaking story be enough to push a society over the edge to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide? Are emotional, heartbreaking stories like this one enough to convince politicians it’s time to stop the pain and approve the killing of such a person – with her informed consent?

clip_image001 clip_image002

(image courtesy El Mundo)                                          (image courtesy The Deep Portal)

Chantal Sébire was a French schoolteacher who developed a rare form of cancer which severely disfigured her eye-sockets and face. She also lost her senses of sight, taste and smell’. She died in 2008 from a drug overdose when the French government would not grant her the right to euthanasia’ (courtesy Ranker).

Image result for photo Kerry Robertson euthanasia Victoria(Photo: Jacqui Hicks, left, and Nicole Robertson, right, were with mum Kerry Robertson when she died. (Go Gentle Australia), ABC News, Brisbane Qld)

On 19 June, 2019 in the Australian State of Victoria voluntary assisted dying was legalised. The first person euthanised (killed) under this legislation was Kerry Robertson, aged 61, who had lived with cancer for about 10 years. She died, surrounded by family, in a Bendigo nursing home on 15 July 2019.

1. Rejecting euthanasia

Martyn Iles was the new managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), as of 2018. I received an emailer from ACL that included Martyn’s brief, but exceptional article, Dr David Goodall, euthanasia, and suffering‘.

It contains the line, ‘If we rip off the band-aid that says, “thou shalt not kill” in such circumstances, we are asking for a myriad of troubles’.

2. Does it mean, ‘Thou shalt not kill’?

I encourage Martyn and other writers for ACL not to use this erroneous KJV translation, ‘Thou shalt not kill’. The correct translation from the Hebrew (Ex 20:13) and Greek (Matt 19:18) is: ‘You shall not murder’. These various translations correct the meaning of Thou shalt not kill” (LXX ou phoneuseis)   and ‘You shall not murder’ (Hebrew lo tir?a?) for Exodus 20:13.

The better translation of Ex 20:13 is found in these translations:

  • NKJV: You shall not murder.
  • ESV: You shall not murder. The footnote for ‘murder’ states, ‘The Hebrew word also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence’.
  • NRSV: You shall not murder. The footnote is, ‘or kill’.
  • NIV: You shall not murder.
  • NLT: You must not murder.

If it means ‘you shall not kill’, God contradicted himself many times in the OT. A couple examples are:

Joshua 6 describes the destruction of Jericho (the Canaanites) at God’s command. Why would God authorise such murder? Norman Geisler explained:

Israel was commanded by God to completely exterminate the Canaanite inhabitants of the land including men, women, and children. This has been called a primitive and barbaric act of murder perpetrated on innocent lives.

Several factors must be kept in mind in viewing this situation.

(1) There is a difference between murder and justifiable killing. Murder involves intentional and malicious hatred which leads to life-taking. On the other hand, the Bible speaks of permissible life-taking in capital punishment (Gen. 9:6), in self defense (Exod. 22:2), and in a justifiable war (Gen. 14).

(2) The Canaanites were by no means innocent. They were a people cursed of God from their very beginning (Gen. 9:25). They were a vile people who practiced the basest forms of immorality. God described their sin vividly in these words, “I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Lev. 18:25).

(3) Further, the innocent people of the land were not slaughtered. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah clearly demonstrates that God would save a whole city for ten righteous people (Gen. 18:22f.). In that incident, when God could not find ten righteous people, He took the four or five righteous ones out of the place so as not to destroy them with the wicked (Gen. 19:15). On another occasion God saved some thirty-two thousand people who were morally pure (Num. 31:35). Another notable example is Rahab, whom God saved because she believed (cf. Heb. 11:31).

(4) God waited patiently for hundreds of years, giving the wicked inhabitants of Canaan time to repent (cf. 2 Peter 3:9) before He finally decided to destroy them (Gen. 15:16). When their iniquity was “full,” divine judgment fell. God’s judgment was akin to surgery for cancer or amputation of a leg as the only way to save the rest of a sick body. Just as cancer or gangrene contaminates the physical body, those elements in a society—if their evil is left to fester—will completely contaminate the rest of society.

(5) Finally, the battle confronting Israel was not simply a religious war; it was a theocratic war. Israel was directly ruled by God and the extermination was God’s direct command (cf. Exod. 23:27-30; Deut. 7:3-6; Josh. 8:24-26). No other nation either before or after Israel has been a theocracy. Thus, those commands were unique. Israel as a theocracy was an instrument of judgment in the hands of God. (Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1977, pp. 99-100, in ‘How could a loving God tell the Israelites to kill their enemies, even children?’)

Jesus confirmed this commandment, ‘You know the commandments: xDo not murder….’ (Mark 10:19).

God authorised the murder / killing of many people according to the OT and he authorised the command not to murder in the NT.

2.1 Mistranslation of ‘kill’

The mistranslation of the word as ‘kill’ includes these translations: Wycliffe Bible (1395), Tyndale (1536), the Bishop’s Bible (1568),  the Geneva Bible (1599), Douay-Rheims (1610), KJV (1611), ASV, RSV,  NAB, and NJB.

The translations that correctly render the word as ‘murder’ include: NRSV, NKJV, NLT, NIV, NIRV, NASB, NABRE, LEB, ISV, HCSB, GNB, ESV, Complete Jewish Bible, YLT, and REB.

Why is ‘kill’ a mistranslation? The Hebrew uses the word, rasah, which is a specific word for murder in the 6th commandment. This does not prohibit capital punishment, but is in harmony with Gen 9:6.  Rasah is not a general word for ‘kill’ as we have in English.
The next chapter of Exodus gives and example that demonstrates Ex 20:13 does not refer to general killing: ‘Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death’ (Ex 21:12 NIV).

We need to remember that God is not against killing: ‘… without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness’ (Heb 9:22 NIV).

As Professor Berel Lang of Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut (USA) has noted:

“The original Hebrew, lo tirtsah., is very clear, since the verb ratsah. means ‘murder,’ not ‘kill.’ If the commandment proscribed killing as such, it would position Judaism against capital punishment and make it pacifist even in wartime. These may be defensible or admirable views, but they’re certainly not biblical” (cited in Andrew Holt PhD).

3. Conclusion

There would be a substantial contradiction created by God if his command was, ‘You shall not kill’, as God Himself ordered the killing of many people, Israelites and Gentiles in the OT. He also ordered the killing of Jesus on the cross (Matt 27:46; John 3:16; 2 Cor 5:21).

The exegesis of Ex 20:13 and Matt 19:18 demonstrates that the correct translation is, ‘You shall not murder’ and not ‘you shall not kill’.

Both medical science and Scripture confirm that the life of a human being begins at conception/implantation. See my articles:

clip_image004 Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective

clip_image004[1]Exodus 21:22-23 and abortion

clip_image004[2]    The Church Fathers on Abortion

clip_image004[3]When an abortion goes horribly wrong

Therefore, I conclude that abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide involve the murder of a human being and should be criminal offences.

Copyright © 2019 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 10 August 2019.


Graphic abortion images removed from Queensland submission

26 Week Abortion

(photo 26 week abortion, courtesy AbortionNO)

By Spencer D. Gear PhD

I made a 15-page submission to the Queensland ‘Abortion Law Reform (Woman’s Right to Choose) Amendment Bill 2016 that was submitted in June 2016. It was published online as submission No 455 at: (Accessed 16 July 2016).

The Bill is designed to change the law to decriminalise the killing of the unborn through abortion. My emphasis was to retain the law as it exists.

You will note in my published submission online that the Parliamentary office has chosen to:

A. Blank out certain portions of my submission

Here is how the censorship appeared. This table with a picture was blacked out.

5. This will be what will happen for many Qld children if MPs CHOOSE to reject the Bill.

You will choose this kind of life over death!












B. This also was blanked out

7. This will be what happens to unborn Qld children if you CHOOSE to pass this Bill.













C. What did I send in my submission?

5. This will be what will happen for many Qld children if MPs CHOOSE to reject the Bill.

You will choose this kind of life over death!

(photo courtesy

D. This also was sent in the submission


7. This will be what happens to unborn Qld children if you CHOOSE to pass this Bill.

(image courtesy Abortion Truth)
(image courtesy 100 abortion pictures)

E. Conclusion

I am left to conclude that the graphic contrast between a newly born and growing child when compared with aborted remains of 2 children were too graphic for the government bureaucrats to include. Or could I be more accommodating and concede that the guidelines for submissions prevented the use of graphics? This especially applied to photos that would show the existence of a human being who was slaughtered by abortion and the unsightly remains that clearly demonstrate the nature of abortion.

Here’s the contrast again of life for children and the killing of children in the womb (abortion):

Image result for Newborn Baby on an Arm public domain
(photo courtesy

(photo courtesy


Copyright © 2016 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 28 September 2016.

Queensland Senator bullying Queensland MPs

(image courtesy

By Spencer D Gear PhD

How do you think a politician would push her views on abortion? I wrote to her on 5 November 2015 by email to expose what I understood she was doing. The title of my email was, ‘Quit your histrionics[1] and bullying’:

I read the article in the Brisbane Times (2 November 2015) about what you are doing to Queensland State MPs, ‘Greens Senator Larissa Waters wants Queensland MPs to show position on abortion‘.

Please quit this action of bullying Qld MPs. They are big boys and girls who are capable of thinking through the abortion issues themselves.

We already have provision for doctors to abort if there is physical or mental danger to the mother.

It is important that children be protected from conception. You obviously don’t give a hoot about that view. It’s important to safeguard children from murder while they are in the womb. There are life and death reasons for keeping the Qld abortion laws as they are.

It is time for you, a federal Qld senator, to remove yourself from wanting to influence State MPs like this and using the mass media to push your view. What you are doing is engaging in histrionic bullying of MPs with your public demands.[2]

How do you think her office would reply to this kind of personal email from me?

A. Red herring reply from a Senator’s office

I want to commend the Senator’s office for replying to my email because many of the Senators I contact do not get back to me at all. It’s as if my writing to them, for whom I have voted, is a waste of time. However, how did the person in the senator’s office reply? Here it is:

Thank you for contacting Senator Larissa Waters regarding abortion.

Senator Waters respects your concerns and acknowledges your perspective on this issue.

The Australian Greens have been, and continue to be, strong supporters of women’s right to access free, safe and legal termination services.  The Greens believe it’s unacceptable that so many Australian women still struggle to access this basic health service, which is why we will continue to work to improve women’s access to termination services.

Thank you again for contacting Senator Waters to express your views.


[staff member’s name]

Office of Senator Larissa Waters [3]

Notice what she missed from my email of 5 November to Senator Waters? She omitted one of my primary emphases that I placed in the email title, ‘Quit your histrionics and bullying’. Not once in this reply did the staff member mention my accusation of bullying of Qld MPs – not once. She avoided it to push Senator Waters’ pro-abortion agenda.

(Herrings kippered by smoking and salting until they turn reddish-brown, i.e. a “red herring”. Prior to refrigeration kipper was known for being strongly pungent; courtesy Wikipedia)

By avoiding the topic I raised of histrionic bullying of MPs, Senator Waters’ office has practised a red herring logical fallacy. What is that? The Nizkor Project explains:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.

2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim (The Nizkor Project 2012. S v red herring).

Therefore, I responded to Catherine Garner via email:[4]

Your response is a red herring logical fallacy. You did not address the issue I raised of Senator Waters bullying Qld MPs about their views on abortion. Please quit it. Bullying in all its forms should not be promoted, let alone practised, by Senator Waters.

1. Politicians among least trusted

Your reply endorses fallacious reasoning. No wonder in 2011, reported by The Sydney Morning Herald, it was found that ‘this year’s Reader’s Digest survey on the most-trusted professions sandwiches politicians between car salesmen and telemarketers, in the bottom three out of a list of 45 vocations’. Politicians were 44 on the list of 45′ (The Sydney Morning Herald 2011). Sadly, journalists were competing with politicians near the bottom of that list at No. 40. In fact, sex workers are at #39, meaning that politicians are less trusted than prostitutes.[5]

How was Senator Waters tackling the views of Queensland MPs on abortion?

B. Politician bullying other politicians

clip_image002(photo of Senator Larissa Waters, courtesy Wikipedia)


This federal Greens’ senator for Queensland, Larissa Waters was bullying Qld MPs with some of these emphases, as reported by the Brisbane Times:[6]

1. She was asking Queensland State MPs to declare their position on decriminalising abortion. Why? It was a component of her campaign to expose what she considers is Qld’s ‘outdated law’ that she wants changed. To me, this seems like a predicted technique. She is pushing for a change in Qld State legislation. So what better way to do this than to unmask the politicians’ perspectives on abortion so that she could then attempt to debunk or parade their values for possible ridicule or exposure in their electorates?

However, she is a federal politician and should be leaving State politics to the state political sphere. This doesn’t prevent her from expressing her views. However, she did it in a very public sphere through this article in the Brisbane Times.[7]

2. This was associated with a report in the Brisbane Times that Qld women were travelling interstate to obtain abortions (Mitchell-Whitington 2015). This article claimed Qld women wanting abortions were breaking the law by going south for the procedure. ‘In 2014, Children by Choice referred 77 women interstate, with similar organisations making the same type of referrals so that figure is probably much higher’, claimed Professor Caroline de Costa of James Cook University School of the College of Medicine and Dentistry.[8] De Costa’s contention was that ‘extensive abortion “tourism” from all Australian states to Victoria and overseas (is occurring) in the face of barriers to access to abortion’.

So this Brisbane Times article garnered a pro-abortion response from a Professor of Medicine. Where was the balance? I did not find a right of response from Cherish Life, a right-to-life organisation.

3. This is how Waters is bullying Qld MPs. It was reported that ‘Larissa Waters has begun campaigning to decriminalise the procedure [of abortion] in the sunshine state, with plans to publish where Queensland’s MPs stand on the issue’ (Remeikis 2015). This kind of threat amounts to bullying by intimidation, in my view.

4. This article stated, ‘”The fact that abortion is still a crime in Queensland creates stigma and legal uncertainty for women and for doctors,” Ms Waters said in the letter to the state’s MPs’. So Waters is pushing the stigma and legal side to try to get MPs to declare their hand on abortion so that she will shame them (this is how I see it) about ‘the dearth of access to abortion in Queensland’ (Remeikis 2015).

5. The bullying by shaming continues: ‘Our outdated laws, are hurting Queensland women’. This is guilt by association. If Qld MPs support the current abortion laws they are endorsing old fashioned laws that are hurting women, according to Waters.

6. The guilt by association and bullying continued: ‘Ms Waters said polling shows four out of five voters supported decriminalising abortion, with the Australian Medical Association of Queensland calling the current law “a barrier to a doctor’s first duty – best patient care”’. Not one statistic was quoted by the Brisbane Times or Ms Waters to support this assertion of the percentage of Queenslanders who support abortion. However, elsewhere these are the polling statistics that were not 80% in favour of abortion:

ALMOST two-thirds of Queenslanders support the decriminalisation of abortion, according to an exclusive Galaxy opinion poll.

The poll of 800 voters, conducted exclusively for The Courier-Mail, found 64 per cent believed abortion should be legalised, while 31 per cent disagreed. Five per cent were uncommitted (Miles 2009, emphasis in original).

A year later it was reported:

Image result for clipart research public domain

(image courtesy

New independent polling by Galaxy Research reveals Queensland voters are evenly split on whether to “decriminalise abortion”, despite widespread media coverage of the recent Cairns court trial and contrary to recent claims by the pro-abortion lobby that there is 90 per cent support.

The poll, taken after the week-long trial, shows a cautious attitude towards abortion with 29 per cent saying they would not allow abortion “at any stage of pregnancy”. This makes a total of 74 per cent of Queenslanders who would not permit abortion beyond the first trimester, or not at all.

Even support for first-trimester abortions is qualified because half (49 per cent) of Queensland voters do not support abortion for non-medical reasons (that is, social or financial reasons). Of course, it is deemed common knowledge that the majority of the annual 14,000+ abortions in Queensland are carried out for non-medical reasons, something which may shock the general public if they knew.

Catapulting the cause for abortion law reform into media headlines was the trial of a young couple in Cairns during October 12-14. After only one hour of deliberation the jury found them not guilty of the two charges: procuring one’s own abortion and supplying a drug to procure an abortion (McCormack 2010, emphasis in original).

Commenting on this poll, the Australian Christian Lobby stated:

“Despite activist organisation GetUp! reportedly claiming that decriminalising abortion has 90% public support, this new poll shows that 74% of Queensland voters are opposed to abortion past the first trimester,” ACL Managing Director Jim Wallace said. “Another important finding is that almost everybody (94%) believes that a woman should receive free independent counseling to enable a fully informed decision. Three quarters of respondents (77%) believed that abortion can harm the mental and physical health of a woman.

“The poll also found that 29% of respondents did not support abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, and that nearly half of those surveyed (49%) said they did not support abortion for non-medical reasons. This is particularly noteworthy considering that the vast majority of abortions carried out in Australia today are not for medical reasons, but for purely for financial or social reasons.

“There is clearly no consensus that abortion laws should be changed except to introduce better safeguards for women such as independent counseling, cooling-off periods and parental consent for girls under 16,” Mr Wallace said (Australian Christian Lobby 2010).

A 2008 survey reported in The Medical Journal of Australia came to different conclusions. It was ‘an anonymous online survey of 1050 Australians aged 18 years or older (stratified by sex, age and location) using contextualised questions, conducted between 28  and 31 July 2008’ and reached the conclusion that there was,

a high level of support for access to early abortion; 87% of respondents indicated that abortion should be lawful in the first trimester (61% unconditionally and 26% depending on the circumstances). In most of the clinical and social circumstances described in our survey, a majority of respondents indicated that doctors should not face professional sanctions for performing abortion after 24 weeks’ gestation.

Conclusions: Our data show that a majority of Australians support laws which enable women to access abortion services after 24 weeks’ gestation, and that support varies depending on circumstances. Simple yes/no polls may give a misleading picture of public opinion (de Crespigny et al 2010).

However, this study did admit that ‘late abortion is especially controversial, although less than 2% of abortions occur at 20 weeks or later. Few data support the belief that Australians strongly oppose women’s access to late abortion, while surveys in the United Kingdom and United States do report opposition’ (de Crespigny et al 2010).

C. Abortion ‘tourism’ is pathetic publicity

passenger airplaneProfessor de Costa of James Cook School of Medicine used a wretched designation for the travelling to another city to have an abortion. She called it, ‘extensive abortion “tourism”… in the face of barriers to access to abortion’ (Mitchell-Whitington 2015). Sarah Colyer (2015) for the Australian Medical Association also used the language of ‘abortion tourism’ and cited Professor de Costa in her article, along with others. In a Media Release for the Australian Medical Association on 26 October 2015, Professor de Costa again repeated the offensive language of ‘tourism’ to obtain an abortion because of the divergence in legislation across Australia: ‘The result of these differences is continuing and extensive abortion “tourism” from all Australian states to

Victoria and overseas in the face of barriers to access to abortion’ (de Costa 2015).

1. ‘Medical tourism’ in action

I find it abominable that any medical doctor or professor could call the killing of an unborn child in abortion to be an example of tourism in action. Wouldn’t travelling interstate to murder somebody be a better description of what goes on?

How do you think others see this view of ‘tourism’? One comment to Colyer (2015) was: ‘The use of the word “tourism” in this article is in the same context as “medical tourism” – where people travel to have procedures or treatment that are not accessible to them locally – either due to availability or cost. The term does not intend to trivialise the treatment, but to describe the act of travelling’ (comment by Sue Ieraci). Another’s response was more provocative, ‘“Tourism’”??? Really???? I find this both an inflammatory and demeaning term to be used in the exploration of a significant health issue’ (Nicole L in Colyer 2015). How does a doctor of conscience with a different view to that of de Costa and others deal with abortion?

I work in Victoria and am always concerned about the welfare and rights of both mother and baby when a woman with an unwanted pregnancy presents. It happens to me very rarely now as I get older.

Unless the mother’s viability is in real danger and there therefore exists the mother’s right to act in self defence of her life, I will not be part of killing anyone. Therefore, I refuse to be involved in a referral for abortion to someone who is not of the same moral belief. i.e. I will break the law in Victoria where my right as a citizen to act according to my conscience has been legislated away as a result of the unfortunate alliance of left wing Victorian Labor politicians of the early 2000s. Emily’s List is a very powerful lobby group in the Labor Party who have engineered legislation which allows the legal killing of babies while in utero until birth. What barbarity! (Paul Jenkinson in Colyer 2015).

I’m with you, Nicole. To describe travelling to have a procedure to kill an unborn child as ‘tourism’ is not only demeaning and abominable but profane,[9] in my view. The abuse of a life given by God (the child in the womb) through killing is vulgar and wicked to redefine as tourism, even medical tourism. What is a nation coming to where a professor of medicine is prepared to publicly go on record as regarding murder of an unborn child as tourism?

This does get down to worldview and scientific issues regarding the commencement of human life.

D. Conclusion

This article commenced with a Qld example of a Qld federal Senator, Larissa Waters, who was pressuring (bullying was my language) Qld MPs for their views on abortion so that she could pressure them to decriminalise abortion in Qld.

What was her purpose? She wanted to prevent ‘medical tourism’ by which a pregnant woman would travel to another state or territory to have her abortion – the killing of her unborn child.

The Brisbane-based ‘Children by Choice’, states that the organisation ‘is proud to have the support of our three patrons – Senators Claire Moore, Sue Boyce and Larissa Waters’. So that nails Senator Waters’ colours to the mast. She’s a promoter of abortion and her bullying Qld MPs to obtain their views on abortion seems to be to pressure them into providing evidence that her pro-abortion side can use to manipulate Qld laws for pro-abortion change to decriminalise abortion.

I find the tactic abominable that she has used.

Works consulted

Australian Christian Lobby 2010. Qld polling challenges pro-abortionist claims (online), 29 October. Available at: (Accessed 10 November 2015).

Colyer, S 2015. Call to end “abortion tourism”. MJAInSight[10] (online), 26 October. Available at: (Accessed 11 November 2015).

de Costa, C 2015. Advances in fetal medicine outstrip abortion law reform. The Medical Journal of Australia: Media Release (online), 26 October. Available at: (Accessed 11 November 2015)

de Crespigny, L J; Wilkinson, D J; Douglas, T; Textor, M & Savulescu, J 2010. Australian attitudes to early and late abortion. The Medical Journal of Australia (online), 193 (1), 9-12. Available at: (Accessed 10 November 2015).[11]

McCormack, L 2010. QUEENSLAND: 12 per cent swing in favour of protecting unborn. News Weekly, November 13. Available at: (Accessed 10 November 2015).

Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2015. Available at: (Accessed 11 November 2015).

Miles, J 2009. Two thirds support abortion law change: poll. The Courier-Mail, September 15. Available at: (Accessed 10 November 2015).

Mitchell-Whitington, A 2015. Outdated Queensland abortion laws creating a ‘tourism’ of women travelling south. Brisbane Times (online), October 26. Available at: (Accessed 11 November 2015).

Oxford Dictionaries 2015. Oxford University Press. Available at: (Accessed 11 November 2015).

Remeikis, A 2015. Greens Senator Larissa Waters wants Queensland MPs to show position on abortion. Brisbane Times (online), November 2. Available at: (Accessed 10 November 2015).

The Nizkor Project 1991-2012. Fallacies (online). Available at: (Accessed 11 November 2015).

The Sydney Morning Herald 2011. Australia’s most trusted: sex workers trump pollies in public confidence stakes (online), June 22. Available at: (Accessed 10 November 2015).



[1] ‘Histrionic’ means being ‘excessively theatrical or dramatic in character or style’ (Oxford dictionaries 2015. S v histrionic):

[2] I sent this to Senator Waters’ email address: [email protected].

[3] The staff member sent this email on 10 November 2015 from email: [email protected].

[4] I do not make my personal email available on this ‘Truth Challenge’ website.

[5] I did not include this last sentence in my email to Waters’ office.

[6] Remeikis (2015).

[7] Ibid.

[8] This professorship is confirmed in the MJA InSight (Colyer 2015).

[9] I am using ‘profane’ as meaning ‘to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt: desecrate; to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use’ (Merriam-Webster 2015. S v profane).

[10] This is a Medical Journal of Australia publication.

[11] There was no pagination for this online edition.


Copyright © 2016 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 14 January 2016.

When an abortion goes horribly wrong


(image courtesy, Patrick’s face burned by saline)

  By Spencer D Gear

I was sitting in the waiting room of a hospital awaiting day surgery shortly after 6am on Thursday, 24 November 2011, when I heard the sad news on Channel 9 TV news, Australia, that an ”Aussie hospital mistakenly aborts wrong twin fetus‘. The essence of this news item was:

  • A Victorian (Australian) woman, 32-weeks pregnant, lost her twin babies in a botched abortion on Tuesday, 22 November 2011, at Melbourne’s Royal Women’s Hospital – the wrong baby was ‘terminated’. That means that he was killed.
  • Doctors had told the woman that one of the babies had a congenital heart defect requiring many operations if it lived. Obviously the woman had agreed to abort the unhealthy baby.
  • Instead of ‘terminating’ the unhealthy twin, the healthy twin was aborted when he was ‘accidentally injected’.
  • Then there was ‘an emergency Caesarian section to end the life of the sick child’.
  • The mother is traumatized.
  • The medical staff involved called it a ‘clinical accident’ and were said to be ‘inconsolable’.
  • A hospital spokeswoman apologised, said the hospital was deeply sorry for the loss suffered by patient and family.
  • A newspaper, the Herald Sun, said that the family was considering legal action.

See further details at, “Healthy foetus accidentally terminated” (ABC News Australia).

How did I respond?

Here I’ll give a brief personal reflection.

Firstly, I was in a hospital waiting room in the early hours of the morning about to undergo a much less serious procedure when I heard this message on the TV in the waiting room. Instead of thinking of the possibility of a botched procedure in my own case, my heart went out to this mother, father and family who were grieving the loss of twin boys who had already been named. I felt deeply for their loss in such tragic circumstances.

I’ve lost both of my parents through death, but I can’t imagine that this is anything like the severity of losing twin boys through an accidental medical procedure.

Secondly, my grand-daughter was born one month prematurely in July 2011 at 8-months gestation. She was the same age as these twins in their mother’s womb. I know what my grand-daughter looked like as a premature new-born child. These are the size of children that this mother in Melbourne lost. Under normal circumstances they may have been old enough and developed enough to live. I’m thinking of a mother losing two children who could have been the size of my grand-daughter at birth. But the mother did choose to abort one of the boys on doctors’ recommendations.

What are some of the ethical issues?

Is it ever right to abort, even if a child has abnormalities?

1. It should be very obvious with these twin babies that they were old enough to survive outside of the womb under normal circumstances. However, the bigger issue is that abortion always kills human life. See my article, “Abortion and life: A Christian perspective“, that demonstrates that all of life is precious, from conception to the grave. Ethically, I consider that there is only one circumstance in which abortion is an option and that is to save the life of the mother, an example being a tubal pregnancy.

2. What happened at the Melbourne hospital is an example of the medical profession playing God and it went horribly wrong. It is God’s right to give and take life. How do I know?

I am a committed evangelical Christian who takes the Bible seriously. God’s view on life is more important than mine. Hannah’s prayer was, “The Lord gives both death and life; he brings some down to the grave but raises others up” (1 Samuel 2:6 NLT). It is God’s responsibility to give life and to end life. Human beings want to take that responsibility from God. We must remember God’s perspective: “And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27 NLT).

3. What about abortion of those with disabilities, as with the Melbourne case?

It is often claimed that abortion is a more “humane” alternative for the defective, since it will spare them the agony of “lives devoid of quality and meaning”.  I’ll let the handicapped speak for themselves, through a testimony that appeared in 1962 in the London Daily Telegraph in the midst of the thalidomide tragedy:

We were disabled from causes other than Thalidomide, the first of us having two useless arms and hands; the second, two useless legs; and the third, the use of neither arms nor legs.
We were fortunate . . . in having been allowed to live and we want to say with strong conviction how thankful we are that none took it upon themselves to destroy us as helpless cripples.

Here at the Delarue School of spastics [Trowbridge, Kent], one of the schools of the National Spastic Society, we have found worthwhile and happy lives and we face our future with confidence.  Despite our disability, life still has much to offer and we are more than anxious, if only metaphorically, to reach out toward the future.

This we hope will give comfort and hope to the parents of the Thalidomide babies, and at the same time serve to condemn those who would contemplate the destruction of even a limbless baby.  [Signed by Elane Duckett, Glynn Verdon, Caryl Hodges] (in Davis 1985, pp. 156-57).

4. Are foetuses in the womb human or are they medical tissue to be aborted? There are strong biblical arguments for the foetus being a fully human being (surely the abortion of a foetus at 32-weeks can be recognised as human):[1]

a. Unborn babies are called “children,” the same word used of infants and young children (Luke 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16; Exodus 21:22), and sometimes even of adults (1 Kings 3:17).

b. The unborn are created by God (Psalm 139:13) just as God created Adam and Eve in his image (Genesis 1:27).

c. The life of the unborn is protected by the same punishment for injury or death (Ex. 21:22) as that of an adult (Gen. 9:6).

d. Christ was human (the God-man) from the point he was conceived in Mary’s womb (Matt. 1:20-21; Luke 1:26-27).

e. The image of God includes “male and female” (Gen. 1:27), but it is a scientific fact that maleness or femaleness (sex) is determined at the moment of conception.

f. Unborn children possess personal characteristics such as sin (Ps. 51:5) and joy that are distinctive of human beings.

g. Personal pronouns are used to describe unborn children (Jeremiah 1:5 LXX; Matt. 1:20-21) just as any other human being.

h. The unborn are said to be known intimately and personally by God as he would know any other person (Ps. 139:15-16; Jer. 1:5).

i. The unborn are even called by God before birth (Gen. 25:22-23; Judges. 13:2-7; Isaiah. 49:1, 5; Galatians 1:15).

j. Guilt from an abortion is experienced, therefore, because a person has broken the     law of God (sinned), “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13; Matt. 5:21; 19:18; Romans 13:9).  Forgiveness can be received through confession to Jesus Christ (1 John 1:9).

“Taken as a whole, these Scripture texts leave no doubt that an unborn child is just as much a person in God’s image as a little child or an adult is.  They are created in God’s image from the very moment of conception, and their prenatal life is precious in God’s eyes and protected by his prohibition against murder” (Geisler 1989, p. 148).

5. There is another tragedy in the death of twins in the womb. There could be many couples without children in Australia who would be ready, willing an able to accept a child for adoption who has congenital heart disease and would need many operations throughout life. These people are denied this opportunity.

Adoption numbers are reducing in Australia. One report stated, “There has been a substantial decline in the number of adoptions in Australia since the early 1970s. In 1971–72 there were 9,798 adoptions, which declined to 1,052 in 1991–92, and 576 in 2005–06”. Here are figures for “Adoptions Australia: 2005-2006“.

What a tragedy that some Aussie family has not had the opportunity to adopt a child who had congenital heart disease.

For the benefits of adoption, see my wife, Desley Gear’s, testimony, “Adoption – How sweet the sound“.


I pray that what happened in Melbourne Royal Women’s Hospital will jolt the medical profession and Australians in general to rethink what they are doing in endorsing abortion and what the medical profession is doing in violating its own Hippocratic Oath in killing infants in the womb.

I grieve for the parents involved, but I have deep sorry for the thousands of babies who are killed in the womb in Australia every year. The Australian government states that “it is impossible to quantify accurately the total number of abortions which take place in Australia each year”. Life Network, in the article, “Abortion in Australia“, used government and other statistics to demonstrate that:

estimated 80,000 – 90,000 surgical abortions are performed in Australia each year. This equates to approximately 250 per day, or one abortion for every 2.8 live births. One in three Australian women will have an abortion in their lifetime.

And this is supposed to be the Lucky Country!

Works consulted

Davis, J. J. 1985. Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.

Geisler, N. L. 1989, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues. Leicester, England: Apollos (an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press).


[1] This section in its entirety is based on Geisler (1989, p. 148).


Copyright © 2011 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 15 October 2015.


Whytehouse Designs

Abortion and Life: A Christian Perspective


(image courtesy, Abortion and American Holocaust)

By Spencer D Gear

“Australia faces not a population explosion. . . but a copulation explosion,” with an increasing pregnancy rate, a falling birth rate and an alarming abortion rate (Fisher & Buckingham 1985, p. 1). In the financial year 1984/85 there were 55,153 abortions.  This increased to 77,551 in 1995/96.  For the year 1999/2000 there were 73,699 abortions (Queensland Right to Life 2001). I spoke with one Australian federal Member of Parliament during the year 2004 and his estimate was that the current abortion rate was approaching 100,000 unborn children, killed every year in Australia.  This figure was confirmed by De Costa (2007:13).

The rate of abortion in Australia was a national tragedy and society had too lax an attitude towards sexual promiscuity among teenagers, federal Health Minister Tony Abbott said yesterday.

Speaking at Adelaide University on the ethical role of a Christian politician, Mr Tony Abbott MP, a Catholic, said there were 100,000 abortions in Australia each year, which he labelled a measure of the nation’s moral health. . .
“Why isn’t the fact that 100,000 women choose to end their pregnancies regarded as a national tragedy?” (‘Abortion rate a tragedy, says Abbott,’ 2004).

(photo Tony Abbott, courtesy Wikipedia)

It was not surprising that such open opposition to abortion by the former Australian Federal Minister for Health & Ageing, and former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott MP (pictured above) – and Prime Minister of Australia in 2013 – brought criticism from within the political arena, interest groups and by the general public:

Former TREASURER Peter Costello has warned his colleagues not to make abortion an “incendiary political issue” after Health Minister Tony Abbott said women were taking “the easy way out” by terminating pregnancies.

Mr Costello also insisted his cabinet colleague was making a personal statement – not signalling any change in government policy – on access and funding for abortions. “We would not want it to become one of those incendiary political issues in this country,” he told Sydney radio king John Laws. “Let’s not try and turn elections on issues like that” . . .

Federal Women’s Minister Kay Patterson distanced herself from Mr Abbott’s views yesterday. “It would never be an easy choice, but women have the right to choose,” she said.

Opposition Leader Mark Latham said women had a right to choose abortion and Mr Abbott should get off his “moral high horse”.  “I believe women have a right to make a choice in their circumstances,” he said. . .

Roberto Rojas-Morales, the director of Sexual Health and Family Planning Australia, which is yet to receive confirmation of further federal funding, challenged Mr Abbott to “put his money where his mouth is” and boost funds for comprehensive sex education.

“We agree more attention and resources should be focused on lowering the abortion rate — and the best way to do that is through quality education,” he said. Australian Women’s Health Network convenor Helen Keleher said if Mr Abbott was serious, he should insist that all schools – including the Catholic system that educated him – gave full and frank contraception advice.

“We agree the rate is too high – it is a tragedy – but blaming women is not the answer,” she said. Women’s Electoral Lobby spokeswoman Sarah Maddison slammed Mr Abbott’s comments as “deeply offensive” and called on him to apologise to women who had had abortions.

Children by Choice spokeswoman Cait Calcutt said Mr Abbott could reduce the number of abortions dramatically if he agreed to fund better quality sex education  (see Schubert 2004).

Since we have reached the situation in Australia where approximately 100,000 children are aborted every year according to the Federal Health Minister in 2004, more Australians are aborted each year than died from the atomic bomb blast at Hiroshima (estimated as between 70,000 – 100,000 killed).  Based on information published in 1985, there is one abortion for every three live births in Australia.  Abortion claims more than two in five human deaths in Australia each year.  One unborn Australian child dies by abortion every seven minutes [in 2004, it is one abortion every five minutes].  For every five women having abortions, three are unmarried (Fisher & Buckingham 1985, pp. 18, 20). By comparison, in the United States in 1985 there were 1.588 million abortions and an estimate of 1.328 million in the year 2000 (National Right to Life 2004). 

Although the statistics are dated, John Jefferson Davis stated that

the United States leads the world in teenage abortions, with over 500,000 per year.  Some 150,000 abortions are performed in the second trimester of pregnancy, “the most grisly of all,” notes Dr. Matthew J. Bulfin, “the ones that some hardened abortionists refuse to do because the killing is so real and unmistakable” (Bulfin 1983:A22, in Davis 1985:130)

Davis cites statistics from a quarter century ago, that “of those obtaining abortions in 1981, 66 percent were under age 25 and 77 percent were unmarried” (1985:130).

It is difficult to obtain reliable figures for abortion worldwide, since many countries (especially Eastern Europe, the former Commonwealth of Independent States and China, where most of the world’s abortions take place) do not keep accurate statistics.  These are proposed figures:
 blue-arrow-smallIn 54 countries (61% of the world population) abortions are legal.
blue-arrow-smallIn 97 countries (39% of the world population) abortions are illegal.
blue-arrow-smallThere are approximately 46 million abortions conducted each year, 20 million of them obtained illegally.
blue-arrow-smallThere are approximately 126,000 abortions conducted each day (statistics from “Women’s Issues” 2004).

Fisher and Buckingham claimed that “the number of human lives lost by abortion each year is more than the total of all lives lost in all the wars in history put together” (1985, p. 15, emphasis in original).

Technically, abortion refers to the miscarriage of an unborn child, whether naturally or artificially caused.  However, in everyday language, “abortion means deliberately bringing about a miscarriage or bringing to an end a pregnancy and the life of the unborn child involved,” surgically or with drugs.  The latter definition is the one assumed in this paper.  Euphemistically, abortion has been called “termination of pregnancy”, “cleaning out the uterus”, “removing the products of conception”, “interception”, “the procedure” or “interruption of pregnancy” (Fisher & Buckingham 1985, p. 5)

Partial-birth abortion procedure

( image courtesy Advocates for Life)

Is John W. Montgomery over-reacting when he titles his book, Slaughter of the Innocents? (1981) Is the title, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust by John Powell (1981) an exaggerated description?

Those who promote abortion and those who oppose abortion start from opposite positions.  The pro-abortionists emphasise the rights of the mother; the right of the child is the focus of the anti abortionists.  Christians who submit to the Lordship of Christ and desire to live under Christ’s authority, justice and compassion, must ask themselves what principles are involved.  It is then that the key moral and theological issue emerges: what is the nature of the foetus?  I “reject as totally false and utterly abhorrent the notion that the foetus is merely a lump of jelly or blob of tissue, or a growth in the mother’s womb, which may therefore be extracted and destroyed like teeth, tumours or tonsils” (Stott 1984, p. 284). However, is the unborn child a human being?  Harold O.J. Brown forcefully asserts:

Of all the arguments used to support abortion, the contention that the foetus is not a human being has to be the most dishonest.  No one who studies human development can pretend to be ignorant of the facts.  Admittedly, there may be some dispute as to precisely when fetal life is “fully human,” but everyone knows it is long before birth (1977, p. 135).

What then is the evidence for the origin of human life?

When does human life begin?

This is the fiery issue that will call a storm in conversations if you dare to raise it.

Leading obstetrician gynaecologist and medical researcher, Dr Landrum B. Shettles, says the real core of the debate over when life begins is “the clash between an ethic that makes the sanctity of human life an absolute and a new ethic that renders that life relative and sometimes expendable” (Shettles with Rorvik 1983, p. 107).

Medical Aspects

In 1970, in the midst of the United States’ abortion debate (it was legalised in 1973), the editors of the journal California Medicine (the official journal of the California Medical Association), noticed “the curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death” (in Davis 1985, p. 137).

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, in 1981, held hearings on when life begins.  The following are samples of evidence submitted by the medical profession (in Shettles with Rorvik 1983, pp. 113-114):

Dr Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris:

When does life begin? . . . Life has a very long history, but each individual has a very neat beginning, the moment of its conception . . . To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion.  The human nature of the human being, conception to old age, is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.

Dr Watson A. Bowes, Jr, of the University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter — the beginning is conception.”

Dr Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, after noting that standard medical texts have long taught that human life begins at conception, added:

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty . . . is not a human being.

Dr Micheline Matthews-Roth, research associate of Harvard University Medical School: “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

Professor Hymie Gordon, chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota): “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Dr McCarthy De Mere, a practising physician and a law professor at the University of Tennessee: “The exact moment of the beginning [of] personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”

The medical breakthrough came in the 1960s when Francis Crick and James Watson discovered the genetic code (DNA).   

The genotype — the inherited characteristics of a unique human being — is established in the conception process and will remain in force for the entire life of that individual.  No other event in biological life is so decisive as this one . . . The genotype that is conferred at conception does not merely start life, it defines life (in Shettles with  Rorvik 1983, pp. 36-37).

Biologically, human life begins when the sperm merges with the ovum to form the zygote, containing the full set of 46 chromosomes necessary to create new human life.  “The haploid sex cells (ova or spermatozoa) are parts of potential human life.  The zygote is human life” (Shettles with Rorvik 1983, p. 40, emphasis in original). The First International Conference on Abortion in Washington D.C., 1967, declared: “We can find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg and the birth of an infant at which point we can say that this in not a human life” (in Stott 1984, p. 286).

Bible Basics

The Bible does not specifically condemn abortion.  Nor does it specifically deal with infanticide (killing babies) or genocide (the killing of a whole race).  However, there are specific provisions against homicide (the deliberate taking of human life).  Therefore,

if the developing fetus is shown to be a human being, then we do not need a specific commandment against feticide (abortion) any more than we need something specific against uxoricide (wife-killing).  The general commandment against killing covers both (Brown 1977, p. 119).

Definition of a Human Being [2]

The most important clue is given in Genesis 1:27 where human beings are differentiated from animals in two significant ways: they are made (1) in God’s image and (2) by a direct divine act.

Another contrast is given in God’s covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:3-7) where human beings are given stewardship dominion over animals and may use them for food.  It is also evident that the wilful killing of innocent blood of human beings is an offence against the image of God.

Although the meaning of God’s image in human beings has been defined a number of ways, “most theologians agree that it is only because he was made in God’s image that man can relate to God” (Brown 1977, p. 126). While God takes an interest in animals (e.g. Jonah 4:11), He does not relate to them as He does to human beings.  “If God relates in a personal way to a human creature, this is evidence that that creature is made in God’s image” (Brown 1977, p. 126, emphasis added). How then does God relate to us before birth?

God and Us Before Birth

Psalm 139, using poetic imagery and figurative language, states three important truths about our prenatal existence on which John Stott elaborates (1984, pp. 286-288):

(1) Creation.  “You created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (v. 13).  “Although the Bible makes no claim to be a textbook on embryology, here is a plain affirmation that the growth of the fetus is neither haphazard nor automatic but a divine work of creative skill” (Stott 1980, p. 50).  See also Job 10:8.

(2) Continuity.  The psalmist refers to himself in the past (v. 1), present (vv. 2-3), future (v. 10) and pre-natal (v. 13).  In all four stages, he refers to himself by the same personal pronouns “I” and “me”.

He who is thinking and writing as a grown man has the same personal identity as the foetus in the womb.  He is aware of no discontinuity between his antenatal and postnatal being.  On the contrary, in and out of his mother’s womb,. before and after his birth, as embryo, baby, youth and adult, he is conscious of being the same person (Stott 1984, p. 287).

(3) Communion.  Psalm 139 gives the radical personal relationship of God to the individual.  The “I-you” relationship between God and the psalmist is expressed in almost every line.  The Creator God loved the psalmist and related to him long before he could respond in a conscious relationship with God.

What makes us a person, then, is not that we know God, but that he knows us; not that we love God but that he has set his love upon us.  So each of us was already a person in our mother’s womb, because already then God knew us and loved us (Stott 1984, p. 288).

Other biblical passages speak of the prenatal and postnatal continuity (Job 31:15; Psalm 119:73).  God chose Jeremiah before birth and sanctified him in his mother’s womb (Jer.1:5).  David recognised his identity began with conception (Psalm 51:5).

In the New Testament, when Mary and Elizabeth met, both being pregnant, Elizabeth’s baby (John the Baptist) “leaped in her womb” in salutation of Mary’s baby, Jesus.  Of special significance in Luke’s account is that he used the same word brephos (NT Greek) for an unborn child (1:41, 44), the new-born baby (2:12, 16) and the little ones brought to Jesus to bless (18:15) [Stott 1984, p. 289].

The most startling affirmation of the sanctity of prenatal life is the incarnation of Jesus Christ.  His personal history on earth began, not when he was “born of the Virgin Mary”, but when he was “conceived by the Holy Spirit” (see Matt.1:18, 20) [Davis 1985, p. 150].

If Jesus (true God and true man) was present in His mother’s womb from the first moment of His conception, then it follows that other [people] must also be alive and existing as human beings from the first moments of their conceptions; for unless they are the same as Jesus in this respect of their human nature, He would not be like them in every essential human respect except for sin (Krimmel & Foley 1985-86, pp. 12-13) [See also Heb. 2:17].

Foetus as fully human: Biblical arguments [3]

1.    Unborn babies are called “children,” the same word used of infants and young children (Luke 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16; Exodus 21:22), and sometimes even of adults (1 Kings 3:17).
2.    The unborn are created by God (Psalm 139:13) just as God created Adam and Eve in his image (Genesis 1:27).
3.    The life of the unborn is protected by the same punishment for injury or death (Ex. 21:22) as that of an adult (Gen. 9:6).
4.    Christ was human (the God-man) from the point he was conceived in Mary’s womb (Matt. 1:20-21; Luke 1:26-27).
5.    The image of God includes “male and female” (Gen. 1:27), but it is a scientific fact that maleness or femaleness (sex) is determined at the moment of conception.
6.    Unborn children possess personal characteristics such as sin (Ps. 51:5) and joy that are distinctive of human beings.
7.    Personal pronouns are used to describe unborn children (Jeremiah 1:5 LXX; Matt. 1:20-21) just as any other human being.
8.    The unborn are said to be known intimately and personally by God as he would know any other person (Ps. 139:15-16; Jer. 1:5).
9.    The unborn are even called by God before birth (Gen. 25:22-23; Judges. 13:2-7; Isaiah. 49:1, 5; Galatians 1:15).
10.    Guilt from an abortion is experienced, therefore, because a person has broken the     law of God (sinned), “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13; Matt. 5:21; 19:18; Romans 13:9).  Forgiveness can be received through confession to Jesus Christ (1 John 1:9).

“Taken as a whole, these Scripture texts leave no doubt that an unborn child is just as much a person in God’s image as a little child or an adult is.  They are created in God’s image from the very moment of conception, and their prenatal life is precious in God’s eyes and protected by his prohibition against murder” (Geisler 1989:148).

Exodus 21:22-25

The English Standard Version renders these verses: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.  But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

Some have used this passage to support a permissive view of abortion.  One interpretation of the passage is that

if a man causes a pregnant woman to have a miscarriage, but no further harm comes to the woman, then capital punishment is not required for the loss of the life of the unborn child, no matter how advanced the pregnancy.  According to this interpretation, Old Testament law does not consider the unborn child a soul or human life, thus implying a clear distinction between the value of the life of the unborn child and that of the mother (Davis 1985:150-151).

The “miscarriage” translation is rejected on linguistic grounds, since the verb yatza when used alone (as in this passage) refers to a live birth, not a miscarriage (cf. Gen.25:25, 26; 38:28-30; Jer.1:5; 20:18).  Therefore, the better translation is “premature live birth” rather than “miscarriage”.  “The text actually treats the life of the mother and that of the unborn child as equally valuable” (Davis 1985:151; see Davis for a detailed explanation).


(image courtesy ClinicQuotes)

God clearly sees the unborn child as already a human being, made in His image.  Killing of such a person (abortion) is MURDER.

In this abortion debate, Harold O.J. Brown argues persuasively that the burden of proof is on the advocates of a permissive position to show that the unborn child is not human.

If a hunter were to see a movement behind a bush and shoot at it, without being sure that the movement were not caused by a human being rather than by an animal, such an action would be morally irresponsible.  Regarding abortion, any doubts concerning the humanity of the unborn child should be resolved in favor of developing human life (Brown 1977:119).


(image courtesy Amazing animations)

When the morality of abortion is analysed, there are three major options: abortion-on-demand, abortion on “indications”, and abortion only to preserve the life of the mother.


This is a secular outlook on the value of human life, one of its most prominent representatives being situation ethicist and liberal churchman, Joseph Fletcher.  He identified personhood according to consciousness and intelligence (minimum IQ score of 20 on the Binet scale).  “Obviously a fetus cannot meet this test no matter what its stage of growth . . . The unborn child is a nonperson, and abortion would always be justifiable except in those cases where undesirable consequences for the woman would outweigh desirable ones” (Davis 1985, p. 145).

It is clear that this view rejects the biblical ideas of human beings made in the image of God and human life existing before birth.  It is a non-biblical option.

Abortion on “Indications”

Norman Geisler, an evangelical Christian apologist, theologian and ethicist, makes the distinction between the “actual” life of the mother and the “potential” life of the unborn child (1971:218ff). He concludes that abortion is justified in four distinct cases:

(1) For therapeutic reasons when the option is “taking the life of the unborn baby or letting the mother die, then abortion is called for” (p. 220);
(2) For eugenic reasons “when the clear indications are that the life will be sub-human and not simply because it may be a deformed human” (p. 222);
(3) When there is “conception without consent” through rape.  “A violent intrusion into a woman’s womb does not bring with it a moral birthright for the embryo”     (p. 222);
(4) When conception is through incest (p. 223).

This view makes the foetus less than a full “person” or “human being”, because it lacks fully developed consciousness.  I consider this to be a dangerous position to adopt, because the same argument could be used to justify infanticide after birth.  Former Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, as the Director of the Centre for Bioethics at Monash University, Melbourne, and now a professor at Princeton University advocates such a conclusion (Singer 1983:128-129) [4]. “Rather than saying that the unborn represent `potential human life,’ it is more accurate to say that the unborn represent actual human life with great potential” (Davis 1985:153, emphasis in original).

The Life-of-the-Mother Position

It is widely held by conservative Protestants and represents the official pronouncements of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Orthodox Jewish religious leaders.  This position states that only in rare cases where continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother’s life, would abortion be morally justified.  An example would be a tubal pregnancy.  Abortion is not performed on the assumption that the foetus is without value.  But, rather than letting two lives perish, the abortion is performed to save the mother’s life when the unborn child’s life is not salvageable (Davis 1985, p. 147).

The life-of-the-mother position seems to have the most support from Scripture (see Brown 1977, p. 118ff). However we need to note the paediatric experience of the former Surgeon-General of the United States, Dr. C. Everett Koop, when he stated,

Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life.
    When a woman is pregnant, her obstetrician takes on the care of two patients—the mother-to-be and the unborn baby. If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarian section.
    His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature . . .  The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger (Koop 1980).

Rape, Incest and Anticipated Birth Defects

Rape is a physically and emotionally traumatic experience for the woman involved, requiring a ministry of Christian compassion and assistance.  However, should an abortion be performed if a pregnancy results?  Pregnancy from confirmed rape cases is rare, findings ranging from zero to 2.2 percent of the victims involved (Davis 1985, p. 154).

Justice requires that the rapist be punished, not the innocent child conceived as a result of the rape.  Yes, the woman has suffered an injustice, but abortion would represent a further injustice.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  By not having an abortion, the woman avoids the psychological and spiritual problems from the guilt of killing an innocent human life.  She also avoids the risk of endangering her future reproductive capacity (Davis 1985, p. 154).

Amniocentesis and other medical techniques now allow for the detection of a growing list of genetically related conditions before birth.  Should unborn children with anticipated birth defects be aborted?  Dr Glanville Williams forcefully asserts:

To allow the breeding of defectives is a horrible evil, far worse than any that may be found in abortion . . . An eugenic killing by a mother [who gives birth to “a viable monster or an idiot child”], exactly paralleled by the bitch that kills her mis-shapen puppies, cannot confidently be pronounced immoral (in Stott 1984, p. 295).

The Christian conscience should recoil from such horror.  Biblically, there is no justification for a “search and destroy” ethic.  Birth defects can be used in God’s sovereign plan (see Exodus 4:11).  Jesus Christ demonstrated God’s compassion and justice, not by destroying the sick, blind and lame, but by healing them.

It is often claimed that abortion is a more “humane” alternative for the defective, since it will spare them the agony of “lives devoid of quality and meaning”.  I’ll let the handicapped speak for themselves, through a testimony that appeared in 1962 in the London Daily Telegraph in the midst of the thalidomide tragedy:

    We were disabled from causes other than Thalidomide, the first of us having two useless arms and hands; the second, two useless legs; and the third, the use of neither arms nor legs.
    We were fortunate … in having been allowed to live and we want to say with strong conviction how thankful we are that none took it upon themselves to destroy us as helpless cripples.
     Here at the Delarue school of spastics [Trowbridge, Kent], one of the schools of the National Spastic Society, we have found worthwhile and happy lives and we face our future with confidence.  Despite our disability, life still has much to offer and we are more than anxious, if only metaphorically, to reach out toward the future.
    This we hope will give comfort and hope to the parents of the Thalidomide babies, and at the same time serve to condemn those who would contemplate the destruction of even a limbless baby.  [Signed by Elane Duckett, Glynn Verdon, Caryl Hodges] (in Davis 1985:156-57).


The Hippocratic Oath

The Hippocratic Oath, which many doctors swear by at the time of their graduation, says:

I will follow that method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; furthermore, I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce abortion (‘The Hippocratic Oath’ 1996).

There is a modern day Hippocratic Oath that states: “I will maintain the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life” (also available from ‘The Hippocratic Oath’ 1996).

The Declaration of Geneva (1948) updated the classical Hippocratic Oath statement: “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception” (‘The Hippocratic Oath’ 1996).  Many doctors sign this oath.  It is inconsistent, in my understanding, to sign this Oath and then perform abortions!

The Abortion & Breast Cancer Link

Ductal Carcinoma in situ

(image courtesy Breast Cancer)

The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer was formed in May of 1999 by a group of women in the Chicago, USA,  area concerned about the fact that women were not being told by the National Cancer Institute, by their physicians and by anti-cancer organisations that there are now 28 out of 37 worldwide studies, published since 1957, which have linked induced abortion to breast cancer. Our purpose is to educate women and to save lives.  For lots of other links showing the abortion/breast cancer association, follow this link to The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.

Dr. Joel Brind (2000), wrote: “Recently I found myself arguing with the General Counsel to the New York State Department of Health about the need to follow up on the state’s study linking abortion and breast cancer.  Published more than a decade ago, the study found that women who chose abortion were almost twice as likely to contract breast cancer by age 40, compared with the matched, healthy control group with no abortion history.”

A European study brought similar results: “The risk of breast cancer is double for women who have had an abortion. That startling statistic comes from a newly released analysis of breast cancer rates in Europe — and is consistent with a growing body of research” (Shepard 2001).

Big Bucks

In her article, “Confessions of an Abortionist,” former abortionist Carol Everett says: “Abortion is about helping women.  Wrong.  Abortion is about making money — big money.  Greed, not love, is the motivating factor behind the abortion industry” (1992, p. 5)

How do you respond to such a confession?  Everett cannot be speaking for all abortionists, but she is making a strong statement about her former role in the abortion industry.

Abortion Photographs

Some of you may find these photographs of aborted babies offensive and emotionally disturbing.  If so, please do not look further.  However, for those who want to see what happens to these children in the womb, these links are provided for your educational benefit.

A physician tells why abortion is murder‘;
Late term abortions‘;


In the medical community, some are acknowledging that abortion is the destruction of life — murder — but proceed to advocate abortion as a necessity for “social reasons”.  Mary Anne Warren, a bioethicist (Dept. of Philosophy] at San Francisco State University, is a representative of this response.  She dismisses most of the pro-abortion arguments as specious, claiming that the foetus is clearly a human being, but it is not worthy of protection.

Warren is willing even to sanction the killing of an eight-or-nine-month-old fetus, proclaiming that the unborn even at that age is “considerably less personlike than is the average mature mammal, indeed the average fish.”  Even at this stage the fetus, in her view, has no more right to life than “a new-born guppy [fish].”  Consequently, she also sees nothing wrong with killing the unborn in order to make use of its tissues and organs in experimentation and transplantation.  Infanticide is all right, too, in her view, if the baby is defective or there is no one who wants it (in Shettles with Rorvik 1983, p. 117).

Read Mary Anne Warren’s (1996) article, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” where she claims that “it remains true that according to my argument neither abortion nor the killing of neonates [i.e. newborn children] is properly considered a form of murder.”  Why?  It’s based on her definition of personhood.  She suggests that the traits which are most central to the concept of personhood, or humanity in a moral sense, are, very roughly, the following:

1.  Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain:
2.  Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);
3.  Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);
4.  The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;
5.  The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both (Warren 1996).

Warren does admit that “there are apt to be a great many problems involved in formulating precise definitions of these criteria, let alone in developing universally valid behavioral criteria for deciding when they apply” (1996).  She’s even aware of the outrage that her position might cause:

However modest and reasonable they may seem to some people, [they may] strike other people as morally monstrous, and that some people might even prefer to abandon their previous support for women’s right to abortion rather than accept a theory which leads to such conclusions about infanticide (1996).

She’s dead right!  Morally monstrous infanticide seems like an accurate description of Warren’s view.  However, this kind of view  should not be surprising when it comes out of a finite human mind!  We need the Lord of the universe to tell us when human life begins and how we ought to treat every human being, no matter how early or late in life.  Using a human definition of personhood seems to be clutching at staws to justify abortion and infanticide.

In my view, any society which tolerates such things, even legislating for them, has ceased to be civilised.  Terminal decadence has set in.  If slaughtering innocent lives in the womb or as newborn children is the recommended solution for social problems, this society must be at the end of its social, economic, scientific, and spiritual resources.  Can we ever forget Germany’s genocide during World War II?  We must recall George Santayana’s words: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (in Shettles with Rorvik 1983, p. 133).

Will we be seduced by the pro-abortion movement’s publicity?  Dr Bernard Nathanson, a former practising abortionist, admitted to a Canadian gathering in 1981 how the abortionists misused polls and statistics:

We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures.  We succeeded because the time was right and the news media cooperated.  We sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions and fabricated polls which indicated that 85 percent of the public favored unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5 percent.  We unashamedly lied, and yet our statements were quoted as though they had been written in law (in Shettles with Rorvik 1983:130).

Alternatives to Abortion

For compassionate care for the prospective mother and the child, I recommend that you seek out people who promote life, support you through your pregnancy, and are there to assist following the birth of child.  There are two groups of people who do this very well: Local churches and right-to-life organisations that will help you through the pregnancy and  with decisions concerning the child.  Do you want to keep the child?  If you do, you will need lots of support, especially in the early months and years of the child’s life.  If you want to make the child available for adoption (there are loving parents waiting in droves for adoptive children), these two agencies will help.

In Australia, here are some possible contacts for pro-life groups:

Right to Life, Australia, phone: 1300 737 732.

Cherish Life, Queensland, phone: (07) 3871 2445,

NSW Right to Life, phone: (02) 9299 1057

Right to Life Association of South Australia, phone: (08) 8298 8830

Pro-Life Victoria, phone: (03) 9818 6186

Human life protection society, Tasmania, phone: (03) 6224 2632
Pregnancy Help Australia‘.


John Stott’s recommendations for action are worthy of support (1984, pp 297-98):

1. We need to repent.  If Old Testament prophets were to visit us today, I am convinced they would confront us with this massive, deliberate destruction of unborn human life.

If a nation permits the slaughter of the innocent, it surely will bring God’s judgment upon itself.  For Christians to stand idly by while such killings go on, especially in a democratic society where they have a voice in government, it is not tolerance; it is complicity (Brown 1977, p. 122, emphasis in original).

Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop dedicated their book and film Whatever Happened to the Human Race? “to those who were robbed of life, the unborn, the weak, the sick, the old, during the dark ages of madness, selfishness, lust and greed for which the last decades of the twentieth century are remembered” (1979, p. 5).

2. We must accept full responsibility for the effects of a tighter abortion policy, if it can be secured.  This will mean providing practical help for the pregnant woman and her baby.

3. We need to support a positive educational and social campaign.  This will involve educating Christians about the sacredness of human life.  Almost all abortions are due to unwanted pregnancies.  Therefore, we need to become involved in working to prevent and remedy social conditions which lead to unplanned pregnancies.  This will be simultaneous with the proclamation of new life through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.  God is building a new community characterised by love, joy, peace, compassion, freedom and justice.  A new beginning.  A new power.  This is the gospel of Christ.

I maintain fourth and fifth points:

4. Proclaim forgiveness from the guilt of abortion through Jesus Christ.  This will require loving care and ministry towards those who have sinned through having an abortion.  We, of the church, must never reject them.

5.  Join a reputable, but pro-active, pro-life organisation in your city or State (for Australia, see contacts above).

This page is also dedicated “to those who were robbed of life, the unborn, the weak, the sick, the old, during the dark ages of madness, selfishness, lust and greed for which the last decades of the twentieth century are remembered” (Schaeffer & Koop).


2. This section is based on Brown (1977:120-127.
3.  This section in its entirety is based on Geisler (1989:148).
4.  Peter Singer wrote that

if we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication and anything else that can plausibly by considered morally significant. . .  Humans who bestow superior value on the lives of all human beings, solely because they are members of our own species, are judging along lines strikingly similar to those used by white racists who bestow superior value on the lives of other whites, merely because they are members of their own race (cited in Davis 1985:129). 

His arguments are not merely hypothetical.  He argues that infanticide would be acceptable for profoundly retarded newborn babies because they lack the intelligence of normal human beings.  His claim is that “we can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation, made in the image of God, singled out from all other animals, and alone possessing an immortal soul” (Singer 1983:129).

Works consulted

Abortion-breast cancer link.

Abortion rate a tragedy, says Abbott‘ (The Age, March 17, 2004)

Brown, H. O. J. 1977, Death Before Birth, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville.

Bulfin, M. J. 1983, letter to the editor, New York Times (July 1).

Davis, J. J. 1985, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.

De Costa, C 2007. RU-486: The Abortion Pill. Boolarong Press, Salisbury, Qld.

Everett, C. 1992, “Confessions of an abortionist,” New Life (8 October).

Fisher A. & Buckingham J. 1985, Abortion in Australia: Answers and Alternatives, Dove Communications, Blackburn, Vic.

Geisler, N. L. 1971,  Ethics: Alternative and Issues, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI.

Geisler, N. L. 1989, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues, Apollos (an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press), Leicester, England.

‘The Hippocratic Oath’ 1996. Ohio Right to Life, Available from: [22 September 2004].

Koop, C. E. 1980, ‘A physician speaks about abortion’ [Online] as told to Dick Bohrer, Moody Monthly, May 1980, Available from “Pathlights” at: [21 September 2004].

Krimmel, H. T. & Foley, M. J. 1985-86, “Abortion and human life: A Christian perspective” The Simon Greenleaf Law Review, Vol. 5, pp. 12-13.

Montgomery, J. W. 1981, Slaughter of the Innocents, Crossway Books, Westchester, Ill.

National Right to Life (USA) 2004, ‘Over 40 Million Abortions in U.S. since 1973,’ Available from: [21 September 2004].  See HERE.

Powell, J. 1981, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, Argus Communications, Allen, TX.

Schaeffer, F. A.  and Koop, C. E. 1979, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? Fleming H. Revell Company, Old Tappan, New Jersey.

Shettles, L. B. with D. Rorvik 1983 , Rites of Life: The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI.

Singer, P. 1983, “Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life?” Pediatrics 72.1, July.

Stott, J. R. W. 1980, “Does life begin before birth?” Christianity Today (September 5).

Stott, J. 1984, Issues Facing Christians Today, Marshalls, Basingstoke, Hants.

Warren, M. A. 1996, ‘On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,’ from Biomedical Ethics. 4th ed., eds. T.A. Mappes and D. DeGrazia, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, pp. 434-440. [notes not included], available from: [10th October 2004]

“Women’s Issues” 2004 [Online], Available from: [21 September 2004]. This article was no longer available online on 20 May 2017.


Copyright © 2013 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 20 May 2017.

Links between breast cancer and abortion

Links between breast cancer and abortion

Ilustration Of Breast Biopsy

(Breast biopsy, courtesy WebMD)

By Spencer D Gear

Also see: Suction and Curettage Abortion of a 9 week Old Fetus

The New York Times is misrepresenting the research with this statement: “… using inaccurate information, like the medically refuted assertion that abortions cause higher rates of breast cancer” (‘Truth in counseling’, 1 March 2011).

The facts are that there were research studies in China, Iran, Turkey and the USA in 2009 that demonstrated the link between induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer.

One 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found that the increased risks of breast cancer were among those who used oral contraceptives and had had abortions.

Contrary to The New York Times’ biased opinion, even a person who formerly denied the link, Dr. Louise Brinton, has reversed her position on the abortion-breast cancer link because of the evidence. She said that there was a 40% increased risk of breast cancer after induced abortions. Dr. Brinton was involved in 2003 research that denied this link, but she has changed her opinion, based on the 2009 research.

It is time that The New York Times came up to speed with the recent research, instead of denying the research information of the link between abortion and breast cancer.

See also the possible link between use of the contraceptive pill and increased risk of breast cancer. There have been studies for and against the link.


Copyright © 2011 Spencer D. Gear. This document last updated at Date: 1 September 2018.

Exodus 21:22-23 and abortion[1]


Abortion photo courtesy of  The Abortion Gallery

By Spencer D Gear

Exodus 21:22 reads: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine” (ESV).

This verse has sometimes been interpreted to state that the foetus is not fully human. From the exegesis of the passage, I cannot conclude this way for these reasons:

1. The Hebrew word translated in the ESV as “come out”, is yahtzah and it means “to give birth.” This is the same Hebrew word used throughout the OT for live births. So, in this passage it refers to a premature birth of a live child. It does not refer to a miscarriage.

2. Another Hebrew word is used for miscarriage, shakol, and that is not the word used in Ex. 21:22.

3. The name of the mother’s offspring in this verse is called “children,” yeled. This is the same word that is used in verses such as Gen. 21:8 and Ex. 2:3 for babies and young children. If there was harm done to either the mother or child, the punishment was “life for life” (Ex. 21:23).

4. So, Ex. 21:22-23 demonstrates that the unborn was equal in value to the mother.

Geisler quotes the famous Hebrew scholar, Umberto Cassuto , also known as Moshe David Cassuto (1883–1951), who translated Exodus 21:22-23 this way:

“When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life”.[2]

Therefore, these verses confirm that unborn children in the womb are human, on the same level as an adult woman who gives birth to a child, and the punishment for killing an unborn child is “life for life”.


[1] Information based on Norman Geisler 1989, Christian Ethics, Apollos, Leicester, England, p. 145.

[2] Umberto Cassuto 1974. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, p. 275 (cited in Geisler ibid.)


Copyright (c)  2010 Spencer D. Gear.  This document last updated at Date: 0 October 2015.