Contact: Don Feder, 508-405-1337, don@worldcongress.org; The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society, 815-964-5819, media@worldcongress.org SYDNEY, Australia, May 22, 2013 /Christian Newswire/ — World Congress of Families VII (Sydney, May 15-18, 2013) concluded on Saturday. The first Congress in the Asia-Pacific region, the first in the Southern Hemisphere and the first in an English-speaking country was judged an overwhelming success.
World Congress of Families VII was al Source: World Congress of Families

Let’s just get this out of the way: what is considered right or wrong in one culture is vastly different from any number of others. Morality is just conformity to standards of conduct, and can shift to opposite poles even within one generation. We are living in a generation where the world is changing at an exponential rate. Think about the moral fabric of this country. Most of you are constantly aware, especially in election years, how the values of this nation have so radically shifted in such a short amount of time. Who knows what changes even the next ten years will bring?

 Morality is not the same as, nor equal to righteousness. One is a widely interpreted, constantly changing set of commonly accepted rules determined by a society and culture, one is an everlasting standard determined by a being outside of humanity. One is possible to attain, one is impossible. One is worthless, one a treasure with incalculable worth. 

If you didn’t know, within the last several years, places in Mexico legalized abortion. Since then, the rate of abortion has only increased at an alarming rate. We find this to be true in many instances, and I would go so far as to say every instance: when abortion is legalized, more people have abortions. If something is legal people think it’s okay; that it is good to do. Laws change the shape of morality in a nation.

 The abortion debate is a battle often won under the guise of lowering maternal mortality rates yet it has never actually proved to do so. New data from a study done in Chile actually points to a clear correlation between abortion and the increase of maternal mortality rates. Abortion proponents like to paint DIY abortion as this global pandemic, responsible for the majority of all maternal mortality across the earth. They use this social issue which really is a problem the world wants to solve, and twist it to their purposes. If we don’t want unrestricted access to abortion we become the people who want poor mothers in Africa to die.

Let’s be real. The relevance of the, “safe, legal, and rare” smokescreen is long gone. Not only is it blatantly untrue as it applies to the intentions of the United States government and abortion proponents, it is simply impossible and offensive to the intelligence. We as a society consider murder wrong, so we want its occurrence to be rare, therefore we legislate against it and punish perpetrators to the full extent of the law. If we were to follow the same line of logic abortion proponents use, we would say, “we want murder to be safe, legal, and rare, so we will legalize it, remove repercussions and then most of the more gruesome murders will dissipate.” I bet that no matter where you stand on abortion, you would be pretty nervous to enact the same legislation applied to homicide.

Although America was founded with a pretty solid moral standing, we are now in a twisted, snowballing cycle of legislation. The rich, elite of society go to elitist, humanistic colleges where they are taught to rethink the foundations of society and morality itself. Considered some of the highest intellects in the nation, these graduates are put on the fast track to political office where they enact laws aligning with their now skewed views of morality. These unjust laws set a broken foundation on which the generations to follow build their skewed sets of standards. These then grow to go to the humanistic, leftist, elitist colleges to even further question the morality of the previous generation.

Our elite colleges are teaching students to ask like Pilate, “What is truth?” instead of how to recognize it when it is standing right in front of them, in a purple robe and a crown of thorns. Ivy League halls are emblazoned with the words “Lux et Veritas” which mean “light and truth,” but their professors are only succeeding in instructing students to dive into the depths of darkness and regurgitate what they there discover.

There are people so highly regarded by all of our society, their only job is to travel the country and promote their ideas in order to change our culture. Do you know what the philosophers and ethicists of our day are promoting? Infanticide (and here), self-induced abortion as “performance art,“ “non-voluntary” euthanasia, and universal sterilization resulting in ours being the last human generation to exist on planet earth, to name a few.

Pro-life leaders are getting choked up on the argument that “you can’t legislate morality” by the very ones who are doing exactly that. These are the people who are advising our lawmakers, and they aren’t shy about legislating their psychotic brand of morality.

Morality is not the same as, nor equal to righteousness.

In a world of culturally defined morality, there is no truth. There is a truth that stands before and beyond any man’s philosophy or reasoning. We can legislate morality, and if we legislate according to the judgements of the Lord, the people of the world will learn righteousness.

Not only can we legislate morality, we should.

“The judgements of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than Gold, yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover, by them Your servant is warned, and in keeping them there is great reward.” (Psalm 19:9-11)

Continue to bound4life.com for entire article

From 20-24 May, Stephen Shaw, Chairman of SPUC’s North and North East Scotland region, will hike along the challenging Speyside Way to raise money for SPUC’s work. For much of the route Stephen will be taking traces the River Spey from the coast to Aviemore situated in the Cairngorms National Park in the Scottish Highlands. The River Spey is famous for its salmon fishery, whilst the valleys of the Spey and tributaries such as the Fiddich, Livet and Avon are home to the highest concentration of malt whisky distilleries in Scotland.

This year’s event has a special purpose. As well as generating much-needed funds for SPUC’s existing pro-life work, I must ask for your help to fund our continuing battle against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill which threatens to seriously undermine marriage and the family and put unborn children at even greater danger of abortion than they are today. Government statistics show that 80 per cent of abortions in England and Wales are carried out on unmarried women and this is telling us quite clearly that, as an institution, marriage is the greatest defender of unborn children. In countries where same-sex marriage has been legalised—such as Spain—real (heterosexual) marriage has declined. That is why it is so important that the Same Sex Marriage bill is stopped. Stephen will be sending out regular updates and photos of his walk. Below is today’s:

Stephen & Sheila at Boat O’Brig

Tuesday
Today, I was joined by Sheila, a member of the Banff & Buchan Branch from Huntly.

We set off from Fochabers in light drizzle along the minor road to Boat O’Brig where the Aberdeen to Inverness Railway and the B9103 from Keith to Rothes cross the Spey on adjacent bridges.  The drizzle soon stopped and some small areas of blue sky appeared by the time we reached Boat O’Brig.  At this point we caught up with two Germans (a different pair from Monday) and a couple from Stirling caught up with us.

Beyond Boat O’Brig, the Way climbs alongside farmland and provides lovely views of the valley in both directions.  It then enters the Ben Aigan Forest adjacent to the Speyside Gun Club.  The Red Flag was flying to warn us that firing was taking place, although we heard the gunfire long before we saw the flag!  The signs recommended that we did not stray from the marked path.  We obediently complied.  The climbing takes place in the first 2 or 3 miles of this section and leads onto a forest road with a picnic bench, where we stopped for our lunch.  We met the couple from Stirling again at this point.  They showed an interest in the sponsored walk and kindly made a donation to our funds.  By and large, the remaining 5 or 6 miles to Craigellachie were a gentle downhill walk on a forest road and then a minor road.

The last 2 miles of the day’s walk, from Craigellachie to Aberlour, followed the route of the former railway along the side of the river.  As the service is hourly, we made a special effort to reach the bus stop in Aberlour in time for the bus.  We just made it by the advertised time.  The bus, however, was 15 minutes late!

I would like to thank Sheila for accompanying me on this, which is one of the two more strenuous sections of the Speyside Way, and for her efforts in securing sponsorship in her parish.

Stephen

Please consider going the ‘extra mile’ with Stephen and help defend marriage, the family and our precious unborn babies in one or two of the following ways:

• Making a personal donation in lieu of sponsorship
• Gathering sponsors for the Speyside Way walk

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC’s other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC’s Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

I joined the pro-life movement 40 years ago this year, giving my first talk on abortion to schoolchildren in south London in 1973.

Actually, though, on reflection, I was unaware I had joined a “movement”. I was simply appalled at the injustice of abortion, having read Jack Scarisbrick’s little book “What’s wrong with abortion?” and I wanted to do something about it.

Every day that sense of injustice is renewed by reading, watching, or hearing something new … And I think: “Why isn’t every decent person in my church, in society, fighting this injustice?”

You don’t have to be in the pro-life movement to be fired by the injustice of abortion and determined to stop it.

You can be:

• a feminist
• a bishop
• a member of a justice and peace group
• a doctor
• a supervisor midwife – like Connie and Mary, the brave Glasgow midwives whom SPUC has been supporting in their fight for their right to conscientious objection

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC’s other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC’s Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Save the Storks founder, Joe Baker, has a dream to equip the nation with mobile pregnancy centers that have the potential to provide women all over America with knowledge of their alternatives to abortion. By parking outside of abortion mills and providing free alternatives to the pricey services those centers offer (such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests), as well as referrals for pregnant women to receive prenatal services while continuing their pregnancies, Save the Storks buses, which partner with local pregnancy centers, play a part in providing hope to a large portion of women may otherwise never know there are alternatives to abortion.

“There are a lot of vehicles out there that are like a massive RV, instead of saying ‘let’s make it as big as possible, we are saying let’s make it as small as possible.’ Massive RVs have things you don’t need, like a shower, but with Mercedes we are able to just start with a shell and add exactly what we need. We think the vehicle is better than an RV. If you want to park in front of an abortion clinic or anywhere near the city an RV can be too big. We have an exclusive partnership with Mercedes Benz for our buses.”

In 2011 Joe and his new wife, Ann, gave birth to the vision, and we became a nonprofit in 2012. “We’re a pretty new organization,” he said. “My wife and I build our own businesses to support us, so Save the Storks only has one employee named Marcie Little.”

When asked how people can help to spread the word about this new organization, Joe said: “People can’t even comprehend the impact of just spreading our name around the internet. Spreading our ads around is a tremendous way that people can help. If we’re going to put one Stork Bus in every NFL city in America it’s going to cost 2.5 million dollars, so another way people can help is by donating money.”

Why storks? The name “Save the Storks” might not conjure up the typical images we associate with the pro-life movement, such as ultrasound pictures. This was deliberate. Joe and Ann chose the stork imagery for several reasons. Here’s how they explain it:

The white stork is a graceful creature, not something to be afraid of. There is nothing mean or aggressive about them. Storks are gentle – so are we. They are whimsical animals. It’s hard to think about a disproportionate bird flying through the air with a baby in its mouth without a smile coming to your face. The stork branding speaks of the atmosphere we bring to an abortion clinic. As lively, gentle, graceful young people, we are there to love and not condemn.

God has given us a heart for expectant mothers who find themselves in crises situations. Through our partnership with pregnancy resource centers, these mothers can experience the love of Jesus and get the answers and support they need regarding abortion, adoption, and other life matters.

If you would like to learn more about saving storks, visit the Save the Storks website, and spread the word about their life-saving mission on social media.

Governor Peter Shumlin signed a “death with dignity” bill today, making Vermont the fourth state in the country to legalize assisted suicide.

Gov. Peter Shumlin signed the measure in a state House ceremony in Montpelier, capping a decade-long effort on the issue in Vermont.

Vermont is the first state to pass such a law through the legislative process. Oregon and Washington enacted their laws by referendum; in Montana, it was legalized by the courts.

… The law, which went into effect Monday, allows for an end-of-life procedure with the consent of a patient’s doctor after the patient has made more than one request for help in ending life. The bill also stipulates that the patient has a chance to retract the request.

Under the bill, a qualifying patient must be at least 18 years old, a Vermont resident and suffering from an “incurable and irreversible disease,” with less than six months to live. Two physicians, including the prescribing doctor, must make that medical determination. The patient must also be told of other end-of-life services, “including palliative care, comfort care, hospice care, and pain control,” according to the bill.

Like most assisted suicide laws, there is no doubt that this bill was passed with good intentions. It almost always starts off as being “only for the terminally ill”. It’s hard to argue against that, because when someone is dying of an incurable disease, isn’t it kinder to let them die on their own terms? Vermont legislators have clearly fallen into that trap. And it’s a decision that experience has shown will be one that many people will come to regret. What always is left out of this equation is the fact that there’s nothing keeping someone from taking their own life if they so choose — yet somehow, the idea of a doctor being the one to “pull the trigger”, figuratively speaking, makes it easier for many people to swallow.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide is becoming more and more fashionable, gaining traction in Australia, Canada, and now the United States as well. Why is that worrying? Because assisted suicide almost never remains limited to the terminally ill. Belgium is a good example, where people have been euthanized for anorexia, depression, and blindness. If that isn’t scary enough for you, then consider that Belgium is considering expanding their euthanasia program so that parents could kill their disabled children if they so choose, or so that Alzheimer’s patients could be put to death without having to consent first. Belgium’s law currently requires that a patient must be terminally ill or in extreme pain to undergo euthanasia, but that standard is clearly not being met in these cases.

That could just be one errant country though, right? Unfortunately, no. Switzerland began their assisted suicide program in the 1940s, claiming it was only for the terminally ill. Of course, over time, that’s been whittled away until anyone could choose to be killed at any time, for any reason, and recently even voted against regulating assisted suicide centers. There is literally no regulation or oversight for clinics that have made death a multi-million dollar business.

Or you could look to the Netherlands, where Dutch doctors are able to euthanize virtually anyone, even if they do not or cannot consent, such as babies with birth defects.

In Canada, assisted suicide is currently illegal. But there are many people who are fighting for their “right to die.” The government in Quebec is looking to mirror Belgium’s laws and classify euthanasia as “health care”. But not everyone looking to establish euthanasia or assisted suicide in Canada wants to do it so they have the right to die themselves — they want to kill other people legally, such as children with disabilities. We also see these abuses in England, even though euthanasia is illegal, where the Liverpool Care Pathway sentenced tens of thousands of patients to death without their consent.

There can be no doubt that Vermont’s assisted suicide law will not remain only for the terminally ill for long. It is overwhelmingly clear what happens when murder is sanctioned, regardless of what lawmakers’ good intentions might be. It opens the door to rampant abuse and often puts the most vulnerable individuals in our society — the elderly and disabled — at massive risk. Vermont residents should remain vigilant and, as they apparently do not get a say in this matter, hope that lawmakers don’t choose to expand assisted suicide even further.

On Monday May 20, Live Action led a “Stop the Killing Rally” in front of the office park where Germantown Reproductive Health Services is located in Germantown, Maryland.

Rally footage:

The rally was held in response to Carhart’s brutal, inhuman activity and neglect – leading to the deaths of not only children, but women – in his Germantown facility. The rally demanded true protection and empowerment of women, justice for Jennifer Morbelli, and the revocation of Carhart’s license to practice in Maryland.

Speakers at the rally included:

• Lila Rose, Live Action President
• Dr. Grace Morrison, Founder of Pray for Germantown

Investigation into Carhart’s center:

Pregnancy resource centers (PRCs, also known as “crisis pregnancy centers”) are generally small, locally-grown organizations (like this) that provide women with emotional support and various means of assistance during and after an unplanned pregnancy.

While many post-abortive women report that they were made to feel as if abortion was the only possible solution to their unplanned pregnancy, PRCs exist to assure women that there are alternatives to abortion, and that there are loving individuals who will support them through the process.

However, in a one-state “investigation” by NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri, pro-abortion researchers found all of this to be true, but, in a bizarre yet predictable twist, concluded that the life-saving work of PRCs is subversive and not truly helpful to women.

The investigation, called “Show Me Truth: an Investigation into Crisis Pregnancy Centers in St. Louis and Mid-Missouri,” yields a lengthy but poorly-written report that catalogs various supposed-negatives of pregnancy centers – such as the fact that they are usually staffed by volunteers, that they are often connected with religious messages, that they do not refer to abortion centers, and that they often provide women with information about fetal development.

Perusing the 49-page report, one may be waiting for the bombshell – the shocking findings with which NARAL will be able to conclude that pregnancy resource centers are evil places of vengeance and wrath. But the report is simply page after page of publicly-known information about the legal and life-saving work of pregnancy resource centers and their volunteers.

Here is some of the shocking information obtained by one of NARAL’s undercover investigators at a St. Louis-area PRC (brace yourself: this may be too much to handle):

She said that it was a pro-life organization and that they didn’t perform abortions or give referrals for them. She also said that they had no actual medical staff — just counselors who were ‘very good at talking to people.’ She did the test in a back room and then invited us in so she could talk to us in private. She was actually pretty nice; she asked me whether or not I wanted Tyler to come in with me and didn’t seem to mind when I said yes.

Also there was a bucket of baby clothes/toys that were free and in one of the backrooms there were TONS of diapers. It seemed like they really wanted to give out stuff so people felt less overwhelmed having a baby.
–Stephanie, tester

NARAL took issue with one PRC trend in particular: the consistent refusal of PRCs to offer abortion referrals and their tendency to present parenting and adoption as the two possible paths at which a pregnancy comes to fruition.

“It is clear from our research,” they said, “that these CPCs endemically abuse options counseling by presenting motherhood as the only option and speaking of abortion, if at all, as murderous, traumatic, and destructive.” Consider the name: pregnancy resource centers. If these centers were affiliated in any way with abortion, they would not be pregnancy resource places, because an abortion ends a pregnancy, which means there is no need for resources.

And yet, NARAL is dumbfounded that pregnancy resource centers do not offer or promote abortion.

If they were looking for shock value, NARAL should have considered an undercover investigation of some of the late-term abortionists their organization works to keep in business, like Live Action did in its most recent investigation, Inhuman. That is cringe-worthy. Bemoaning volunteer-based organizations that promote abortion alternatives is not.

Peers should have confidence to vote against the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at its first House of Lords debate due on 3 June.

SPUC was commenting after the House of Commons voted in favour of the bill this evening by 366 to 161. All amendments which sought to limit the damage that the bill threatens to wreak on society were rejected. Previously MPs voted by 400 to 175 for the bill.

Paul Tully, SPUC’s general-secretary, told the media this evening:

“The fact that the government failed to increase the proportion of MPs supporting the measure indicates the weakness of their case for this bill.

The consequences of allowing the bill to pass are grave, most significantly the effective abolition of real marriage in English law. Marriage will be redefined as a genderless institution. The link between marriage and child-rearing will be seriously eroded. Significantly, Greg Mulholland MP yesterday called upon Parliament to abolish marriage in English law and replace it with a vague and arbitrarily-invented ‘civil union’. Charlotte Leslie MP defined marriage as ‘a social construct’, when in fact it is a building-block of society, and the common patrimony of humanity. And today, Kate Green, the Labour front-bencher, even questioned the existence of any fundamental English law of marriage.

Once parliamentarians decide to dismantle legal protections for the institution of marriage, then the welfare of children – the main reason for state recognition of marriage – will suffer. Statistics show that the family based on the marriage of one man and one woman is the most protective environment for children, both before and after birth. It is revealing that neither Maria Miller, the minister in charge of the bill, nor Yvette Cooper, the Labour party spokesman, made one single mention of children in relation to marriage in this evening’s debate.

The experience of other countries where marriage has been redefined shows that calling same-sex unions ‘marriage’ damages real marriage – leading fewer people to regard marriage as relevant to parenthood, and all that that entails for tomorrow’s children. SPUC provided evidence to the Commons bill committee showing that this had happened in other countries that have already implemented similar laws.”

SPUC’s evidence “What happens to marriage and families where the law recognises ‘same-sex marriage’?” can be read in full at www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/ssmsub20130301)

SPUC has also published a position paper on same-sex marriage – explaining why SPUC campaigns for real marriage, and a background paper to be read in conjunction with the position paper and which provides some additional references and reflections.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC’s other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC’s Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy