Our culture of death strikes once again!<\/p>\n
Melbourne doctor, Mark Hobart, has hit the news for refusing to refer a couple to another doctor in order to perform an abortion.[1]<\/a> Dr Hobart took his stand when he found out that the parents wanted to abort the child because it was the wrong sex<\/em>. The parents only wanted a boy.<\/p>\n Sadly, this is not the first time the Designer Baby issue has raised its ugly head in this country. We have already witnessed the murder of twin boys for the same reason.[2]<\/a> As technology advances, we can expect the \u201cDesigner Choice\u201d to go beyond sex, to eye colour, hair colour, and any number of things.<\/p>\n This is a sorry state indeed. Yet there are worse things to be noted. Today, I was watching the Nine afternoon news. The story of this doctor came up for discussion. One of the panelists was 2GB\u2019s Ben Fordham. He made comment on the issue. Two things in regard to his comment were noteworthy.<\/p>\n The first was the absence of Free Speech. You could see Mr Fordham struggling to choose words and to avoid saying anything inflammatory. He hedged the issues until he came out with the statement that \u201ca healthy baby had been aborted.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n This led to the second point. Mr Fordham added that \u201cthis was the thin edge of the wedge.\u201d Well, I am sorry, Ben, you could not be any more mistaken. The wedge of which you speak came and went a long, long, long time ago!<\/p>\n We are entering a furore because this poor child was aborted as a result of it being the wrong sex. Supposedly, it was wrong to choose<\/strong> one sex over another. Yet here is the fallacy inherent in the stated opinion of Mr Fordham. Every abortion<\/strong><\/span>, well, the majority, is a choice<\/strong><\/span>. What is the difference in choosing convenience, prosperity, comfort, sleep, etcetera or the sex of the child?<\/em> Nothing! Absolutely nothing!<\/p>\n This then cuts to the heart of that demon, Feminism. The acceptance of abortion was propagated on the basis that a woman\u2019s body was her own and she had the right to \u201cchoose\u201d. This is the demonic beast that gave birth to abortion and it has been the constant mantra of pro-abortionists to this day. I even had the displeasure of reading a statement by Hillary Clinton on Emily\u2019s List. Said she, \u201cI have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard<\/em><\/span>.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n The nonsense touted can be translated thusly: \u2018We do not want to kill babies, but if upholding my right to<\/em> choice<\/em> means that babies are killed, then that is the collateral damage we will have to accept in order to uphold my inalienable right to choose<\/em>!<\/p>\n So, here we are. The conundrum! The basis argued for the legalisation of abortion, is now becoming an unpalatable reality in the form of Designer Babies. Choice<\/em> has now freely exhibited itself to a greater extent and its wretched consequences are unveiled for all to see. Seemingly, those that witnessed this unveiling have been repulsed.<\/p>\n Here, of necessity, we must make comment and pass judgement upon the futility of individual choice<\/em> as final arbiter:<\/p>\n 1. Choice<\/em> has once more been exposed as a \u201cnice\u201d Humanistic ideal, but a poor and wretched guide. The ability to choose wisely presupposes that one has the moral ability to make a \u201cright choice\u201d.<\/em> <\/span>Such ability only comes through surrender to Jesus Christ and being clothed with the mind of God.<\/p>\n 2. As those seeking abortions are rarely clothed with the mind of God, they are partakers of a mind that is hostile toward God. This mindset rejects life and clings to death. It rejects God\u2019s voice and asserts individual right. The glory of God is not considered worthy; only the temporal comfort of the individual matters. Thus, external, moral, absolute revelation is rejected. Decision is made on the basis of internal, immoral, transient values.<\/p>\n 3. This in turn leads to the worship of self and to the declaration of autonomy. Man, and man alone, has the right to govern his life, choose his destiny, decide upon values, and to commission any outside help to achieve the goals of his system. This all sounds good, in theory. Yet, in practice, it is the progenitor of diabolical monsters. Currently, Designer Babies. Recently, cannibalism. Do you remember the case in Germany? A man had longed to eat someone. He advertised and someone responded. The victim chose <\/em>to be eaten![5]<\/a><\/p>\n 4. This said, let us analyse Hillary\u2019s statement: \u201cBeing pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cTo make the right decision<\/em><\/span>\u201d. The presupposition of this statement is that the person in question is moral and has the ability to make a morally correct choice. Given that most abortions are to hide sin, the moral integrity of the one choosing<\/em> must immediately be questioned. Then, off course, in a Postmodern world, one is rightly entitled to question what right<\/em> rightly means? Right!<\/p>\n \u201cThe individual<\/em><\/span>\u201d. In philosophical terms, we must ask, \u201cWhat happened to the many<\/em>?\u201d Here, we clearly see the rank individualism of our day and of the human heart on display. There is no reference to others, particularly to the creator God. We are in a closed system in which the individual rules supreme.<\/p>\n \u201cFor herself and her family<\/em><\/span>\u201d. First, let me play the role of the stereotypic misogynist and ask, \u201cWhat happened to the father?\u201d If there is a family, all homosexual abominations aside, there must be a father. Where is his<\/em> say in regard to his<\/em> wife and his<\/em> family? Second, and as a natural concomitant, we must note that the woman has governance \u2013 her<\/span>self<\/em> and her<\/span> family<\/em>. One seems forced to ask, \u201cWhat happened to equality?\u201d Why, at the very least, is this not our<\/span> decision for our<\/span> family<\/em>? The answer is that Feminism was never interested in equality, despite the constant use of phrases like \u201cequal rights\u201d. It was interested in usurpation. It was interested in fulfilling the sinful desire within woman to rule.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cFor herself and her family<\/em><\/span>.\u201d In considering these words, we must also ask about the needs of a society. What role does the many<\/em> play in the life of the one<\/em> and vice versa? Societies must grow in order to thrive. At the very least, there must be the replacement of the existing population or the society withers and dies. The exaltation of individual choice as final arbiter is not only a road to anarchy, but a road to extinction.<\/span> By allowing the exercise of the individual\u2019s right of choice in regard to the immoral, the society becomes complicit in both the anarchy and the extinction. First<\/em><\/span>, we are our brother\u2019s keeper. That means that society needs to restrain the errant individual who is out to act foolishly. Whether this be procuring an abortion, a prostitute, or an illicit substance, society has an obligation both to restrain and denounce\u00a0evil. Second<\/em><\/span>, prosperity can never be had by a society when it refuses to restrain the errant individual. God cannot bless unrighteousness. Thus, allowing the errant individual to practice lawlessness will only beget and encourage more lawlessness, which, in turn, constrains God to withhold His blessing farther.[7]<\/a> Third<\/em><\/span>, the individual\u2019s morality has serious consequences for society. Two moral individuals will form a moral family whose offspring will add\u00a0to society through integrity and righteousness. The immoral individual will destroy family and beget destruction.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cNot entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard<\/em><\/span>.\u201d This comment is a follow on to the previous point, but it deserves it own space. Note again, the rank individualism. No one, absolutely no one, has the right to govern this individual. Not a husband, not the Church, not even the State! <\/span>This being the case, as touched upon in footnote 4, \u201cWho becomes the arbiter or judge?\u201d \u201cOn what basis is there a justice system<\/em>?\u201d Look at the various happenings in America recently. The Boston bombings. The shooting at Sandy Hook. We could even go back to Columbine. All those involved were denounced. Why? Were they not all individuals exercising their incontrovertible right of choice<\/em><\/span>? If this is so, then how can they be condemned? Hillary has spoken \u2013 none shall judge the individual\u2019s choice! \u201cAhh,\u201d you say, \u201cbut that does not involve the murder of innocents.\u201d Doesn\u2019t it? Doesn\u2019t it!!! Pray tell, what happens when the choice is to abort a perfectly healthy baby?<\/em><\/span> Is not the child murdered? Does not that choice take life? In the case of the twins aborted, is this not mass murder? How is it different to Columbine or Sandy Hook?<\/p>\n What Hillary Clinton has stated, and what Emily\u2019s List promotes through her quotation, is nothing less than anarchy and extinction.[9]<\/a> If Hillary Clinton\u2019s thesis holds true, then no individual can ever be held to account for any deed precisely because all deeds are a matter of individual choice and no individual is accountable to anyone for the choice made.<\/span><\/em> In one fell swoop, Hillary has destroyed God, Law, justice, society, Church, State, Family, governance and so on. Poof! Gone!<\/p>\n In their place, the individual has been enthroned to rule eternally and sovereignly. But wait! There is more. The individual will also rule in tyranny, according to the capricious nature of their own laws and desire. Anarchy will be the first condition realised as individuals end up warring with each other as they each exercise their \u201cright\u201d to choice. War, as we know, has casualties. So, we head to extinction. This we do, gleefully; happy in the knowledge that it is our choice<\/em>. Of course, we may wish for a better outcome. However, as our mantra is \u201cindividual choice above all else<\/em>\u201d, we must be content to simply board the train and allow it to take us to the terminal terminus of our belief.<\/p>\n Brethren, the right of choice<\/em> <\/span>is implicitly tied to the choice of right<\/em><\/span>. The choice of right<\/em> <\/span>always trumps the right of choice<\/em><\/span>. The right choice<\/em> <\/span>enables and permits the right of choice<\/em><\/span>. It is so because the right choice<\/em> <\/span>declares the chooser to be a moral man of God and thereby permits him to exercise his right of choice<\/em><\/span>.[10]<\/a> In contradistinction, the right of choice<\/em> <\/span>by no means guarantees a right choice<\/em><\/span>. In fact, demanding the right of choice<\/em> <\/span>shows a heart estranged from God and underscores the inability of that person to make a right choice<\/span><\/em>.<\/p>\n Friends, I beseech you by the mercies of God; beware the right of choice<\/em> demanded by the rank, God-hating individualist. It is a poison and a canker that harks back to the Man\u2019s rebellion in the garden. It is no more than a modern manifestation of that old lie, \u201cDid God really say?\u201d It is Man once more expressing his desire to overturn God and His righteous rule by declaring himself fit and able to rule in God\u2019s place.<\/p>\n Man\u2019s choice may be to serve himself. Man\u2019s obligation is to render total obedience to God through Jesus Christ.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> http:\/\/www.heraldsun.com.au\/news\/victoria\/melbourne-doctors-abortion-stance-may-be-punished\/story-e6frf7kx-1226631128438<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [2]<\/a> http:\/\/www.thepunch.com.au\/articles\/playing-with-nature-the-ethics-of-sex-selection\/desc\/<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [3]<\/a> This is noteworthy because it is how totalitarian regimes work. Although everyone is supposedly entitled their opinions, yet they are made to fear the public airing of those opinions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [4]<\/a> http:\/\/www.emilyslist.org.au\/about-us\/what-we-believe-in<\/a>. Here, in fancy language is rank individualism. What are the consequences of this choice? Why are we crooked that two brothers detonated bombs at the Boston Marathon? Why is Obama so upset about the shootings at Sand Hook? He would back Hilary\u2019s statement. These people made choices. What is the problem? The real question is the part about \u201cright choices\u201d. Who sits in judgement? At what point do we pass judgement on the rightness of this choice?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [5]<\/a> http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/world\/2003\/dec\/04\/germany.lukeharding<\/a> accessed 02\/05\/13<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [6]<\/a> \u201cShe is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority,<\/em> 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris\u2014at her own disposal,<\/em> of which see an instance in that law, Num. 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands;<\/em> but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it would not have been.\u201d Henry, Matthew, Matthew Henry\u2019s Commentary on the Bible<\/em>, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers) 1991.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [7]<\/a> This is no different to the exercise of discipline within the Church. If false teaching and errant behaviour are not corrected, they corrupt.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [8]<\/a> For example, have we aborted the person who could have cured cancer or united fractured nations? We are also seeing generational breakdown. Fractured families beget fractured families. The single home begets single homes. The \u201cseed sower\u201d condones and begets \u201cseed sowers\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [9]<\/a> Deuteronomy 30:15 \u2013 \u201cSee, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [10]<\/a> The saved man is given a new mind to exercise (Romans 12:1-2). He is expected to exercise it. He is expected to make wise decisions in pursuit of holiness and godliness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Our culture of death strikes once again! Melbourne doctor, Mark Hobart, has hit the news for refusing to refer a couple to another doctor in order to perform an abortion.[1] Dr Hobart took his stand when he found out that … Continue reading
<\/p>\n
\n