"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."
"The fingers of your thoughts are molding your face ceaselessly."
"Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere."
"Humility enforces where neither virtue nor strength can prevail, nor reason."
"Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."
Resistance Thinking Culture
Culture is a term used to describe why humans act the way they do. The study of culture attempts to explain why certain behaviours have special significance for some humans, where as for others it is completely meaningless. Culture encompasses everything from watching television and surfing the web, to doing yoga and having pre-arranged marriages.
All of the human behaviours that make up a particular culture are founded on a certain set of ideas. For instance, Islamic women wear a hijab for modesty because of teahcings in the Hadith and many Christians wear a cross around their neck in rememberance of Christ. These are human behaviours that are founded on a very clear set of ideas. Ideas are expressed in human behaviours that make up a certain culture.
In this culture section you will find articles, news and reviews on an extrememly diverse range of topics that relate to culture: the media - TV, news, magazines, movies etc., other religions - Islam, Judaism, New Age, Buddhism, Hinduism etc., philosophy - postmodernism, existentialism, humanism, consumerism etc., popular culture, music, Christian culture - music, moviews etc., and a whole lot more!
It takes a lot to stand against opposition and against the status quo. Many times it feels like the beach is washing over the rocks, gradually grating the rocks down until there is no resistance. It is at the hardest of times that we must stand on the rock that will never be corroded and dare to be different.
We can take heart from some examples presented to us recently. The other day Tennis legend Margaret Court spoke in defence of marriage. It is irregular for a celebrity to be a conservative. Perhaps because the liberal celebrities are so loud. For instance, George Clooney is a very passionate liberal who is just about to release a movie with a strong liberal lean:
He may be the figurehead but there are many others who follow in his footsteps: Matt Damon, Leonardo Dicaprio, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Ben Affleck, Brad Pitt & Robert De Niro. It is safe to say that in Hollywood liberalism is king. Thankfully, Margaret Court does not live in Hollywood. She resides in WA but still faces opposition for her position against homosexual marriage.
Standing with her is Kevin Rudd's sister Loree who quit the Australian Labor Party today because of the new stance the Party has on homosexual marriage. Loree Rudd said:
"I don't believe gay marriage is good for the community. Homosexuals should be loved and treated right and they should not be discriminated against.
It is a horrible thing for them to be discriminated against and that's why my brother introduced laws so they are not discriminated against. But to make that huge leap from their rights to breaking a commandment of Moses, to say homosexuals' relationships is marriage, is utter nonsense."
Of course the vast majority of the 500+ comments below this article in today's Age (a notoriously left-leaning tabloid) echo some variation of "it's great that the Labor Party now has one less bigot". I hope for her sake that she is not keeping an eye on what people are saying about her because some of it is extremely rude. So I will try and counterbalance this somewhat by saying how impressed I am with Loree Rudd. Not only is she putting her position into the spotlight but she is going further and quitting the Party that she has stood behind for many, many years. It is surprising that it has taken Loree this long to question her Party's policy in light of scripture but her conviction to uphold biblical truth cannot be faulted on this occasion.
Homosexuality is not the only issue to which people have to stand against the flow of society. John Howard, last night, spoke at a book launch for Ian Plimer's new book How to Get Expelled from School. This book aims to correct misinformation about climate change and is very much a hot potato issue. For John Howard to place himself on the side of scepticism puts him very much in the progressive cross-hair. Yet, this is exactly what he has done and it sets him apart.
It is on days like today that my confidence in humanity is restored. Not the confidence that a humanist has but the confidence that I know that God is the ultimate power in this nation. We are His instruments even if we do, at times, struggle to remember our purpose. We must not "conform to the pattern of this world" (Romans 12:2). Instead we must be the "salt of the earth" and a "city on a hill" (Matthew 5:13-14).
In the popular kid's picture book series (at least it was popular when I was a kid) one has to flip through pages containing massive pictures and try and find a candy caned coloured man with a walking stick called Wally (or, for some bizarre reason in America his name is Waldo). The hard part, of course, is that he blends in so well with the rest of the picture that it is hard for the human eye to discern where this mischievous character is hiding. Wally's ability to blend in with the world around him is not something that we should emulate. We are set apart and must remain this way so that others can be set apart. Not so the world becomes like us (as Wally's world does) but so the world can become God's kingdom. Essentially we are accountable to God for when we are a poor example but we are not responsible for the salvations of others.
For many this feels like it is all hard work and no glory. So they remain silent about their faith. After all, who wants to be the next Mel Gibson? Yet engagement is the only option. We cannot remain silent on issues and hope that no attention will be drawn our way. The book of Jonah paints the picture of an unwilling servant. We are not told exactly why he runs away from what God commands him to do. We can speculate on ideas such as:
Jonah had a comfortable life that he didn't want to leave
Jonah was physically afraid of the Ninevites
Jonah was afraid that the Ninevites would laugh at him
Any of these reasons would have great practical application for my article; however, it is dangerous to read between the lines when one is discussing theology. Instead, I shall keep to the text. Jonah is tasked with giving bad news to, what he believes, will be an unwilling audience. Today we will likely face an unwilling audience but we should not approach our task as Jonah did. He was sure that these people were going to reject his message and, even if they didn't, God would destroy them anyway. Thankfully God is more gracious than Jonah and does spare those who turn to Him in humility. It is with humility that we should approach the task of being God's light-bearers. Of proclaiming the need to be reborn through Christ and living up to these declarations. God has a deep love for all the people in this nation and around the world. He has not forsaken us yet.
One final question: why can't Tim Tebow talk about his faith, yet George Clooney can waffle on about his liberalism without rebuke?
Most of us Aussies will not have heard of Tim Tebow. I hadn't, before today. But as is my want, I have done some digging and I present to you the star quarterback of the Denver Broncos. That's right, he's a jock and as much as I loath any sport that is not football (excluding tennis) this twenty-four year old has actually got me interested in the goings-on in the NFL.
Tim Tebow has had an impressive NFL career to date. While he has only played in the professional system for this season and the last he has been wildly successful in his transition to starting quarterback for the Broncos (he wasn't at the start of the season). Tebow is certainly not the best quarterback in the NFL (that honour goes universally to Aaron Rodgers) yet he has an x-factor about him that wins games. When I see him I think of Nic Naitanui and what he might do if he was to realise all his potential. If you want to get an idea of why so many American football fans are excited about Tim Tebow check out his fourth quarter against the New York Jets last week:
Despite my interest in his undeniable talent this wouldn't be cause to pen an article about him. Particularly as this is a Christian website. Tebow is known for more than his unbelievable, yet erratic, game style. He is known for being a committed and convicted Christian. So much so that he may put off some people with his approach. Jake Plubber (former Broncos quarterback) stated on interview this week "I think that when he accepts the fact that we know that he loves Jesus Christ, then I think I'll like him a little better. I don't hate him because of that, I just would rather not have to hear that every single time he takes a good snap or makes a good handoff". Or check out this video:
Tebow's response is impressive to say the least:
"If you're married, and you have a wife, and you really love your wife, is it good enough to only say to your wife 'I love her' the day you get married? Or should you tell her every single day when you wake up and every opportunity? And that's how I feel about my relationship with Jesus Christ, is that it is the most important thing in my life.
So any time I get an opportunity to tell him that I love him or given an opportunity to shout him out on national TV, I'm gonna take that opportunity. And so I look at it as a relationship that I have with him that I want to give him the honor and glory anytime I have the opportunity. And then right after I give him the honor and glory, I always try to give my teammates the honor and glory.
And that's how it works because Christ comes first in my life, and then my family, and then my teammates. I respect Jake's opinion, and I really appreciate his compliment of calling me a winner. But I feel like anytime I get the opportunity to give the Lord some praise, he is due for it".
In some ways I can really relate to Tim Tebow. I've had supposed "friends" turn off my updates on Facebook because they feel I talk about "religion" too much. So the question is how much is too much? Some Christians would say that when you are turning people away from the gospel then it is time to stop. However, what if you are also bringing people to the gospel as well? The sad fact is that the saving message of the gospel will not be received well by some people. Indeed, there will be many who will be extremely put-off by the message or the message-giver. Yet Tim, or anyone else, should not stop because it might upset some people. No matter how attractive a message is some people are not going to take to it.
However, once one professes to be a Christian then their actions are judged accordingly. There will be people who evaluate the merits of Christianity by the ability of said person to uphold the commandments. If we claim to be Christians, as we should, then we are putting God on display to the community. Paul gives us insight into how we should behave as examples:
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord.
Ephesians 5:1-10 (ESV)
I won't claim to love NFL. In fact, I can't help chuckling when the NFL commentators say "Great grab" to what would be a very standard AFL mark. Yet I can still learn something by Tim Tebow's example. As a public figure he faces much greater verbal attacks and critiques over everything he does than we will. Yet we should not be afraid to place ourselves as God's ambassadors in this world:
You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
This is the question Emily Mitchell asks her father Adam. Her pleading does no good, however, because Adam, a local law-man, cannot bring himself to dance with his daughter in public. Instead he just watches her twirl.
Courageous is a rare movie in many ways. Not only does it buck the normal Hollywood trends of secular messages, it goes much further than a standard "movie with a Christian theme". This movie is blatant in its demonstration that fathers need to take their role as providers, protectors and mentors seriously. Unfortunately, as is the case in real life, this is seldom reality. It is likely that this ideal won't be too hard for viewers to swallow. What is causing contention, however, is where this movie directs fathers to look for guidance.
The Bible is the key source of inspiration for fathers. This is the central theme of Courageous and one I heartily endorse. Sometimes the inspiration is portrayed in an unsteady manner which leaves the viewer affronted. Other times this works in really well with the cinematic situation. Regardless, this is a necessary slogan that we should be proud to stand behind. If one visits the Rotten Tomato website they would see this blurb about the movie:
"While the filmmaking is fairly competent, Courageous is overall worthless to anybody who doesn't subscribe to its dogmatic agenda."
I would recommend that you would avoid letting this put you off. The need for fathers in a child's life is backed by overwhelming research. And the so-called "dogmatic agenda" should be considered in the light of opposing worldviews. Indeed, it is such a line that I may use (or some variation) quite regularly whilst reviewing secular entertainment. Though perhaps I would describe some Hollywood films as having an "unholy agenda".
Yet I cannot fathom how this movie is worthless in the context that the Rotten Tomato description uses it. The worthiness of this message is dependant on the truth of it rather than on whether people do or do not subscribe to its "dogmatic agenda". This, of course, raises too many questions and requirements to fill a one-line blurb, but is worth considering when factoring the many reviews that slam this movie for this supposed short-coming.
The quality of this film also belies its modest production costs (US$2 million). The action is as sharp and climactic as one would expect of a regulation Hollywood blockbuster and the cinematography is spot-on. Eclipsing all these elements is a strong score that has an amazing undercurrent that follows the crushing emotions that befall the courageous characters. The pronounced calibre of this movie, despite its budget, is based, in large part, upon the volunteers who gave generously of their time. It is very encouraging that the movie grossed US $9 million in the first weekend.
Some other criticisms levelled at this movie centre on the supposed "poor acting". In one review Alex Kendrick (the lead and director) was compared to a "beatific, humorless Dan Aykroyd". While they do share similar physical characteristics Alex Kendrick does not display a "beatific, humorless" mindset in his role as Adam Mitchell. In fact, Kendrick shows great poise as the lead and terrific audacity as the director. Whilst his on-screen performance may not measure to the heights of Dan Aykroyd this script does not demand such a mountainous task of him.
Indeed, one of its great strengths is its diversity of characters so one actor is not hogging the screen. Each of the five men that this story centres around approaches family leadership in varied ways displaying how detrimental some parenting styles can be.
I walked into the cinema with some reserve about what I was going to experience. I was worried that the movie would be a mixed cocktail of great substance but limited entertainment value. Boy was I wrong. This movie will keep you interested and in great admiration of how much value can be wrung out of a $2 million budget. And, best of all, it will leave you challenging yourself to want to be the kind of parent (present or future) that God exemplifies.
She had all the makings of a one-hit-wonder. Exotic flare, dance club style, and a larger-than-life ego have launched her into stardom. In record speed, she solidified her identity as the leading lady of pop culture by attracting millions of fans who memorize her lyrics, emulate her style, and imbibe her passion.
Lady Gaga is not just a stage name; it's an alter ego, a tool the 25-year-old uses as she masters the art of fame. While she claims music is her first passion and eccentric style her vehicle for expression, consistency in playing the part enables her to continuously shock the world.
The loyalty of her fan base makes Lady Gaga's reign unlike any other. She refers to them as "Little Monsters." In return they call her "Mother Monster." It's a mutually beneficial relationship because millions of people---who vary in age, gender, nationality, socio-economic standing, and sexual orientation---cling to her words and yearn for her presence, as she responds by praising them for their individuality and exhorts them to unleash the superstar within.
"Tonight I want you to let go of all of your insecurities," says Lady Gaga, offering redemption to her devotees from middle school heartbreaks, confusion about self-identity, and mid-life crises. "I want you to reject anyone or anything that ever made you feel that you don't belong. Free yourself of these things tonight!" As she imparts these words and soothes her Little Monsters with song, they claim freedom from angst and awkwardness. Like a nursing mother, she promises them solace.
Such a close relationship with fans has never been seen before. Even Madonna's followers lacked the identification with their pop-star hero that Lady Gaga has secured in a fraction of the time.
The Art of Fame
How did this modern-day heroine reach this place? Like many celebrities, it began with a childhood dream and dedicated parents. Stefani Germanotta grew up in an affluent area of New York, attended Catholic schools, and began studying music and dance when she was 4.
Today, she is a classically trained pianist with a powerful voice. But, according to Lady Gaga, this isn't the only art form she has studied. In an interview with Anderson Cooper she offered this insight: "One of my greatest artworks is the art of fame. I'm a master of the art of fame."
This is evident in her similarity to pop-icon Madonna, whose notoriety was largely due to her ability to reinvent herself. However, Madonna did this with different fashion trends every few years or so; Lady Gaga changes her appearance on a day-to-day basis. Furthermore, Madonna pushed the envelope in many regards, especially in terms of sex, helping make it "acceptable" and even normal for young women to engage in premarital intercourse. Lady Gaga takes this one step further; she not only flaunts her own bedroom activity, but one of her public platforms is homosexuality.
In a recent number-one hit, "Born this Way," Lady Gaga sings, "It doesn't matter if you love him, or capital H.I.M." The song emphasizes the need to love oneself at all cost. She promotes self-love despite nationality and disability, but most of all, with reference to sexual orientation.
The basic argument runs this way: "I'm beautiful, 'Cause God makes no mistakes, I'm on the right track, I was born this way." The song has a catchy beat that masks its ideological edge, but the real shock value is in the music video. The pop diva splits her physical appearance in two; half of her is dressed like a woman, the other half, a man.
This is the Lady Gaga the world has come to expect. This, apparently, is how she has mastered the art of fame.
Who Are Her Fans?
It's also why her fans adore her. One of Lady Gaga's reasons for her behavior is "vicarious eccentricity": if she is weird, it takes pressure off of others who are seen as weird. She attracts the alienated. This is why social outsiders, in-the-closet college students, and underappreciated housewives all gravitate to her.
It's also fascinating to see how Lady Gaga appeals to society at large. She sold 1.1 million records in the first week of album sales in May. Such an accomplishment bears testimony to the sweeping scope of this "fame-monster." She speaks to virtually everyone with her message of love and understanding. "We are all born superstars," she exclaims. But if her fans truly believed and adopted this doctrine as their own, would one of her young fans recently commit suicide because of cyber bullying?
Jamey Rodemeyer, a 14-year-old from Buffalo, New York, took his own life this September. His last words were sent in a tweet to his idol. He wrote, "Goodbye, Mother Monster. Thank you for all you've done. Paws up forever." Jamey had been mercilessly taunted on account of his homosexuality. Unfortunately, his heroine and her promise of deliverance couldn't save the sorrow that plagued the young boy. He thanked her anyway.
Will the Real Deity Please Stand?
Can someone like Jamey Rodemeyer, whose life is ridden with rejection, be redeemed from self-hatred? Why didn't Jamey's inner-superstar emerge to save him as Lady Gaga had promised? Jamey needed a Savior who loved him to the point of death, even death on a cross.
A parody of so great a salvation took place at MTV's 2009 Video Music Awards. Lady Gaga ended her performance by being raised above the stage, drenched in blood. Her body hung there like an icon who had been murdered, dying in the midst of those who both loved her and scorned her. When asked about this she explained, "Everyone wants to see the decay of a superstar."
This is where Lady Gaga's philosophy gets seriously twisted, even damning. In proclaiming the message of redemption by inner illumination, she also promotes death as a spectacle. In this vein, she exploits Christian themes of redemption, only to mock and denigrate them as meaningless. For those who have eyes to see, this messiah complex is a common thread to much of her work. Its expression is profuse and explicit, including her recent song "Judas," in which Gaga sings about her ongoing love for Jesus' betrayer.
Lady Gaga, a mother to her fans, claims that she loves her Little Monsters. While exhorting them to break the shackles of self-imposed weakness, she performs in the foreground of the cross. When viewers try to peek around her theatrics to behold the man with outstretched arms wearing thorns upon his head, she reclaims their attention with provocative display of eroticism. "Keep your eyes on me all you who are rejected, ridiculed, and out of place in society," she cries. "I am your Mother."
But that Man will not be silenced. His love is too broad to be concealed. His redemption isn't a performance. It was a real cross, with real nails, in real time. Truly God and truly man, he died a physical death for actual sin resulting in genuine redemption. This one Savior, truly rose from the grave and really lives. Therefore, his promise is unyielding: "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28). He is the Savior of the world; his name is Jesus.
Click here to go to The Gospel Coalition's website.
For some reason there are millions of viewers taken in by the Glee craze. This television show has been running since May 2009. Like a lot of television shows Glee is a drama with a twist. And that twist is, of course, the characters singing their way through emotional problems. Likely inspired by High School Musical this show has made singing cool again for many of its young viewers.
Despite this joyful exterior there hides a vicious, liberal face. While Glee creators Ryan Murphy, Brad Fulchuk and Ian Brennan don't go out of their way to conceal their agenda it is not challenged as much as it should. Yet, it is time we took a stand against this show, tailored towards teens, because of their newest episode (November 9th) entitled "The First Time". This episode concentrates on two couples losing their virginity for "the first time". Couple no. 1 is the shows leads Finn and Rachel and couple no. 2 is homosexual Glee member Kurt and his boyfriend Blaine. It is extremely unfortunate that so many shows promote this pro-sexual promiscuity like the sexual behaviour by Finn and Rachel. Yet, this is dwarfed by the depiction of sexuality between Kurt and Blaine.
Perhaps, it is no wonder that this has occurred. Series creator Ryan Murphy is openly homosexual, which would surely influence greatly upon Glee's very liberal standing. He is not the only one. Actor Chris Colfer, who portrays Kurt, also professes to be a homosexual in real life. Jane Lynch, an actress on the show, is a lesbian. Darren Criss, Kurt's boyfriend Blaine, is a keen advocate for the LGBT community as demonstrated by his support of the Trevor Project, an initiative to help homosexuals in crisis affirm their lifestyles. With this sort of detrimental influence it's no wonder that the themes that permeate through-out this show.
The most perturbing element of this whole debacle is that this episode will air at 7:30 on Channel 10. There should be family-friendly television entertainment on at this time. While American television watchdog group Parents Television Council do not go far enough I wish to echo their sentiments:
"Teen sex is now more prevalent on TV than adult sex and 'Glee' is only playing into that trend. Research proves that television is a teen sexual super peer that can, and likely will, influence a teen's decision to become sexually active. Fox knows the show inherently attracts kids; celebrating teen sex constitutes gross recklessness."
Yet this is the mainstream media today. Almost wholly corrupted by liberalism. Says Ryan Murphy about this episode:
"We were talking about it [in the writers' room] like, 'Why shouldn't [Kurt and Blaine] lose their virginity at the same time?' Everybody has seen a straight couple losing their virginity, but has anyone dovetailed the gay and straight stories together and given them equal weight? That seemed like an exciting choice and a new thing."
It is disturbing how skewed our media is. There are next to no shows that display a conservative approach yet a significant amount of influential shows are spawned from "progressiveness" in an attempt to give relationships equal weight. Lea Mitchell, the actress who portrays Rachel, said "I wouldn't have done [the sex scene] if I didn't feel like they were doing it in the right way". Unfortunately, this scene was missing the key element that could have made it right, marriage. Not that this needs to be seen on free-to-air television either. No doubt Glee is advocating that dating or homosexuality is no different than marriage. Dr. Nancy Irwin, a hypnotherapist, had this to say about the sex scenes:
"Unfortunately, there is still considerable disapproval of gays in our culture, and this episode will probably spark controversy. Yet, in the end it will be a victory. The envelope is already being pushed...young gays are having sex! I am confident that 'Glee' will handle this issue in an emotionally and psychologically healthy way, so that this young couple is coming of age in a positive, loving manner."
To counter this I will leave the closing remarks to Bill Muehlenberg:
"As both homosexual and non-homosexuals have admitted, and as has been thoroughly documented by scientific studies, the homosexual lifestyle is in many respects a very risky, even dangerous, lifestyle. It is associated with numerous illnesses and diseases and at higher levels than among non-homosexuals. Much of this is associated with the promiscuous and high-risk nature of homosexuality."
Bill Muehlenberg, Strained Relations, pg 9
Of course, the truth would never make the final cut of a Glee episode.
The San Jose Articles were created "to help governments and civil society promote human rights through a proper understanding of how the rights of the unborn child are protected in international law. The articles should be used to counter false assertions, such as the erroneous notion that abortion is a human right". I will quote all of them because of the absolute power they have:
"Article 1. As a matter of scientific fact a new human life begins at conception.
Article 2. Each human life is a continuum that begins at conception and advances in stages until death. Science gives different names to these stages, including zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult. This does not change the scientific consensus that at all points of development each individual is a living member of the human species.
Article 3. From conception each unborn child is by nature a human being.
Article 4. All human beings, as members of the human family, are entitled to recognition of their inherent dignity and to protection of their inalienable human rights. This is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other international instruments.
Article 5. There exists no right to abortion under international law, either by way of treaty obligation or under customary international law. No United Nations treaty can accurately be cited as establishing or recognizing a right to abortion.
Article 6. The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) and other treaty monitoring bodies have directed governments to change their laws on abortion. These bodies have explicitly or implicitly interpreted the treaties to which they are subject as including a right to abortion.
Treaty monitoring bodies have no authority, either under the treaties that created them or under general international law, to interpret these treaties in ways that create new state obligations or that alter the substance of the treaties.
Accordingly, any such body that interprets a treaty to include a right to abortion acts beyond its authority and contrary to its mandate. Such ultra vires acts do not create any legal obligations for states parties to the treaty, nor should states accept them as contributing to the formation of new customary international law.
Article 7. Assertions by international agencies or non-governmental actors that abortion is a human right are false and should be rejected.
There is no international legal obligation to provide access to abortion based on any ground, including but not limited to health, privacy or sexual autonomy, or non-discrimination.
Article 8. Under basic principles of treaty interpretation in international law, consistent with the obligations of good faith and pacta sunt servanda, and in the exercise of their responsibility to defend the lives of their people, states may and should invoke treaty provisions guaranteeing the right to life as encompassing a state responsibility to protect the unborn child from abortion.
Article 9. Governments and members of society should ensure that national laws and policies protect the human right to life from conception. They should also reject and condemn pressure to adopt laws that legalize or depenalize abortion.
Treaty monitoring bodies, United Nations agencies and officers, regional and national courts, and others should desist from implicit or explicit assertions of a right to abortion based upon international law.
When such false assertions are made, or pressures exerted, member states should demand accountability from the United Nations system.
Providers of development aid should not promote or fund abortions. They should not make aid conditional on a recipient’s acceptance of abortion.
International maternal and child health care funding and programs should ensure a healthy outcome of pregnancy for both mother and child and should help mothers welcome new life in all circumstances."