Ray Comfort is releasing a documentary on abortion called 180.

This movie is set to be released free on the internet on September 26.

Go to 180movie.com for more information

For now, here's the trailer:

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Article by Cameron Spink

An article appeared today on The Punch. This was written by Babette Francis supporting the involvement of Catholic organisations in the pro-life movement. Now, I am not Catholic but I am pro-life, and I wish to write to debunk some of the many fallacious arguments from posts below Babette's article. There were claims that members from organisations like The Helpers (a Catholic pro-life group) hurled abuse at those attending the abortion clinics and sometimes even spat on those pregnant women. Here is a quote from a spokesman from The Helpers:

"Our primary goal is the conversion of hearts. Obviously you don’t spit on somebody when you wish to change their heart.

We mainly pray and offer assistance. We endeavour to save the life of the child. Abortion is a tragedy. But all is not lost. There is no rush to judgment. We try to alleviate that feeling that there is no other choice.

We’re under very strict standards of behaviour. The police can now issue a fine for an offensive behaviour. None of The Helpers have ever been convicted of an offence.

It’s all very well to make these accusations but there is no evidence to support it."

Spokesman for The Helpers

With such accusations being clarified as false (I have no reason to doubt the scincerity of the quote above) I wish to concentrate upon is the fallacy (or the poor logic) of many posters below that article. When abortion is discussed there really is no middle ground. This is probably because it is difficult for somebody to say "It is wrong, but I support people's choice to do it".

The first point of note is concerned with clarification. One poster said "You shouldn't refer to your movement as 'pro life', it should be 'anti-abortion'" and then went on to state that pro-lifers resort to killing people. This is obviously in reference to what is classified as incidents of "anti-abortion violence" and makes for some grime reading. If, infact, there was any rational connection between these people using violence (usually a group called the Army of God) and those who take a pro-life stance. The fact is, that I, and nearly all others in the pro-life movement abhor the violence caused by these people who masquerade as pro-life while acting with detestable hypocrisy. You can read an article here where Greg Koukl deals with some of these incidents directly.

So, in the first instance, I would like to refute the title "pro-choice". This is widely inaccurate. The very concept of abortion belies this name as the child is given no choice as to their existence. So if we are called to chance our movement's name to "anti-abortion" (which we won't) then the opposition should change their name to pro-abortion. Unfortunately, this won't happen. However, if it "quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...".

My clarification above draws out the first logical argument from the "pro-choice" side. Several posters state this and I will quote verbatim "a foetus is not a baby, despite the dishonest psychological tactics that Ms Francis and her cohorts deploy". Despite the fact that this poster seems to be playing the man rather than the ball they have enunciated the most regular defence for abortion. This argument is debunked in Randy Alcorn's book Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments. He says "[m]any people have been told that there is no medical or scientific consensus as to when human life begins. This is simply untrue. Among those scientists who have no vested interests in the abortion issue, there is an overwhelming consensus that human life begins at conception. (Conception is the moment when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, bringing into existence the zygote, which is a genetically distinct individual.)" (Part 1b, pg 39). He then goes on to list many experts who support such a position. However, to understand this argument completely you should buy his book and read through his more thorough response.

Usually no consensus can be met on this first argument. The thing with science is that there are always experts who support any position under the sun, no matter how irrational. So it is likely most "pro-choicers" will ignore the argument of life beginning at conception and jump straight to their second argument, which usually goes something like "I am pro-choice because I believe that the only person to have a say in my body and reproductive health is me". This argument is used in many different spheres and can be simplified to "mind your own business!". It is unfortunate that this argument has gained any credence at all and must be testament to the overwhelming selfishness of inhabitants of western nations. In the end this reasoning is found to be rather delusional. Here is Greg Koukl's take on this argument:

"But women have a freedom to choose." False. No one has an open-ended freedom to choose anything they want. You only have the freedom to choose morally acceptable alternatives. Killing innocent human beings because they are inconvenient is not one of those morally acceptable alternatives.

"It's my body and I can do anything I want with it." False on two counts. Even if I agreed that we are only talking about one woman's body, the law does not allow you to do whatever you want with your body. You can't do anything you want with your body. Secondly, an unborn child can have a penis and women don't have penises. That is proof that there is a separate individual human being involved. By the way, that is a nice way to get to the point quickly at a cocktail party.

This kind of personal property argument was used to declare black slave Dred Scott a non-human, so you are in good company if you are arguing that way (facetiously, good company being Judge Taney). The point is, we are not talking about the woman's body. We are talking about another human being domiciled within the woman. Does the dentist become part of the woman's body when he sticks his hand in her mouth to do her teeth? No, of course not. It just goes to show how ridiculous these kinds of slogans are.

Abortion Rhetoric - Greg Koukl, Stand To Reason

One of the most non-sensical arguments also reared its head on The Punch's website. It goes like this "Sure, you could make it illegal - and the backyard operators will simply open up shop again". This is jaw-dropping stupidity. In news today there is growing worries that a gang-related feud is going to explode in Melbourne's northern suburbs. Now drive-by shootings and even assassinations occur enough in Melbourne to make this type of behaviour a regular occurrence. But it would be a strange argument to state that authorities should turn their backs on a very dangerous behaviour. The risk of backyard abortions occurring is unfortunate because it is dangerous for the woman. However, this does not justify legalising abortion, which is a morally reprehensible act.

Of course, many people feel this wording is too fierce and fire back "you have no right to try and impose your beliefs and values on others who don't share them". Well, I'll be! We're being shouted down by a group of people who don't think that anyone should impose their values on anyone else. Even putting aside the rather humorous logical fallacy of the above quote I can't help thinking why not? If abortion is the killing of human life then such an action is synonymous with murder. I have no qualms against denouncing murder so why should I spare abortion the same condemnation.

There was one poster who, perhaps, showed the hand of the pro-abortionists too well. He said "[a]s a scientist you'd know our planet has a disastrous human population problem.  When 'pro-life' means lack of birth control, it should be stamped out!". Thankfully, a reply called his bluff. Because, indeed, if the world has a human population problem there is something he can do to fix it. Of course, and mercifully, this poster will not follow his comments to their logical conclusion (and commit suicide). What we realise is that our existence is precious and worth fighting for. As a Christian I realise that it is not my own existence which is merely precious but everyone around me as well. So while we may have to take a beating for our stance we know that it is God who created us for His glory and we will struggle for the right of the most innocent to receive the riches of His promise.

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

• Hinkler MP Paul Neville called it a "vexed issue", stating there is no overwhelming concern in the community and that Australia has far more pressing issues that warrant the parliament's attention. In Hinkler, only 14 people were supportive of marriage equality, with 595 opposed. Neville expressed his own surprise at how little support there was in his electorate. He also quoted the now notorious Miranda Devine column on the perils of a fatherless society, stating that the notion of "downplay[ing] traditional marriage" was an issue that resonated with him strongly.

• Fowler MP Chris Hayes reported that feedback in his electorate was overwhelmingly in opposition: of the 395 votes cast, over 90% said no to same-sex marriage. Hayes said he "does not apologise for the view of his electorate".

• George Christensen from the seat of Dawson called Bandt's marriage proposal "pointless", saying voters had "more important concerns than this". Of those he surveyed, only 78 out of 456 were for same-sex marriage. Christensen also accused GetUp of attempting to skew public opinion and "subvert the democratic process" by using fake emails in marriage equality petitions. He also raised concerns any change would "weaken the foundations of our society", with the definition of marriage being the only argument we have against polygamy or multiple other types of unions.

• Denison independent Andrew Wilkie noted both sides agree on the "enduring importance of marriage" and both camps claim a majority of support, making it difficult to determine numbers.

• Liberal MP Kelly O'Dwyer reported that same-s-x marriage was not in the top four issues of concern nominated by the people of Higgins.

• Graham Perrett from Moreton stated that of the 1373 responses he received, 44% were supportive of gay marriage, 53% were against and 3% were unsure. Perrett noted these results did not include Carl Katter, as he had already "come out yesterday".

• Alex Hawke, member for Mitchell, the electorate with the highest rate of couples with dependent children, stated there was broad support in his electorate to legally recognise same-sex unions but this did not extend to changing the definition of marriage itself.

• Fraser MP Andrew Leigh said most people who contacted him would like to see a change to the current laws.

• Gippsland member Darren Chester does not support "changes to the Marriage Act" himself, and of the 700 responses he received, 64% were opposed to change.

• Member for Blair Shayne Neuman received 580 responses supporting marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and 150 responses supportive of change.

• Cowan MP Luke Simpkins stated those who have made their views known "strongly and utterly support the current definition of marriage", with 903 supporting the current definition and 103 supporting change.

• Deakin member Mike Symon said he was astounded by the volume of response to the motion. With the exclusion of lobbyists and unverified emails, only 6.02% of Deakin constituents were for same-sex marriage and 93.98% against, but a large number of these supported civil unions.

• Member for Hume Alby Schultz said the motion did nothing more than "indulge the fantasies of the inner-city elites" and he was "deeply offended ... for being told how to do [his] job". Forty-six verifiable constituents contacted Shultz in support of equal marriage rights, and 635 constituents contacted him supporting the "Howard government's definition" of marriage as between a man and a woman.

• Sharon Grierson from the inner-city electorate of Newcastle was the first member of parliament to sign the charter supporting same-sex marriage. She said 800 people who contacted her office were supportive of change and 470 against.

• Fadden MP Stuart Robert reported an overwhelming response in favour of the current definition of marriage, with 30 to one against change.

• Catherine King from Ballarat was contacted over 1800 times and states that views are divided and passionately held on both sides.

• Scott Morrison, the Cook MP, conducted an electorate-wide survey last year on several issues of importance, and said the issue of the day "frankly did not feature". A specific survey conducted by Morrison on the issue of marriage equality saw more than 850 against change and 50 in favour.

• Labor minister Anthony Albanese spoke of his pride in the Labor Party for having changed 84 pieces of legislation to eliminate discrimination against same-sex couples. He also stated the issue will be discussed at the Labor Party's national conference.

• Malcolm Turnbull, the Liberal minister from Wentworth, a seat with a high proportion of gay constituents, received a response from 2333 voters. Of these, 72.7% were in favour of same-sex marriage; 16.8% were not supportive but favoured civil unions; 7.2% were against both gay marriage and civil unions and 3.2% were against gay marriage but did not express a view on civil unions.

• In a yes/no survey with 505 responses, Shortland MP Jill Hall had 86% of her constituents answer "yes" to gay marriage and 13% answer "no".

• Kooyong member Josh Frydenberg said simply he had received passionate responses from both sides of the debate.

• Deb O'Neill from Robertson reported that 70% of her constituents wanted to retain the current definition of marriage.

• Tony Crook, the member for O'Connor, stated the results from his electorate "were indicative of the rest of the nation". Of the 612 responses received, the majority do not support same-sex marriage.

• Lyne MP Rob Oakeshott has "chosen to follow the community on the issue of same-s-x marriage". After wide consultation, Oakeshott concluded there is a deep conviction that the state's definition of marriage does matter. In Oakeshott's electorate, results out of five were two strongly opposed, two indifferent and one in favour.

• Bruce Billson, member for Dunkley, acknowledged the power of the word "marriage" and that the expansion of this term could be detrimental. A significant portion of the community represented by Billson would like their relationships to continue to be acknowledged under the traditional definition of "marriage."

• Member for Reid John Murphy received feedback from a diverse range of people and groups, and states there is no unanimous view amongst these groups, "even in the gay community." However, most feedback "supported the retention of the current definition of marriage".

• Menzies MP Kevin Andrews said the purpose of the motion was merely "to provide a voice to the Greens." The vast majority of Andrews constituents are against a change in the definition of marriage.

• Mark Coulton, member for Parkes, stated that the overwhelming response from his electorate was that there were other matters of far greater importance, and that he himself finds it "deeply confronting" that the Parliament could be "hijacked" by one member, Adam Bandt.

• Bradfield MP Paul Fletcher said he has carried out significant consultation on this matter, and the majority of his constituents support the retention of the current legal definition of marriage.

Here is MP Josh Frydenberg's statement:

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Another great article in The Australian speaking on the right to have a voice in this debate:

"None of these difficulties are insurmountable, but each demands careful consideration. Australia needs to "have the conversation" that the proponents of social change are urging upon us, but such proponents should not dictate who speaks and what they should or should not be allowed to say. Counter-cultural revolutionaries of the 1960s and 70s were prepared to go to prison to fight censorship."

Yes, friends. The tide may well be turning. If nothing else Bandt's attempt to force his radical agenda on Parliament have backfired.

Go and sit in the corner Adam, like a good boy.

"You know its fun being on the forefront of hatred against homosexuals. After all their sinful actions make them sub-human and we should ostracise them from their communities and put them in camps where they won't infect regular citizens like me."

Or, at least, that's what they would have you believe that we think.

It is regular to be called names when discussing the issue of homosexuality. Bigoted, homophobic and hateful are frequently used. Here's a video that gives you some idea of a recurring response to those who do not promote homosexuality as normal or healthy:

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Hateful is a bizarre and incorrect term to use to describe most who oppose sexuality out of marriage for the key reason that the person claiming hate usually has more animosity towards people with different opinions than they do. Herein lays the fallacy. Those who claim Christians are intolerant and almost certainly not interested in opinions from a Christian perspective. Those who claim we are bigots (i.e. stubborn and ill-informed) are nearly always ill-informed.

Take the idea that people are born with homosexual preferences. Most people defending homosexuality will not listen to the evidence (one example is My Genes Made Me Do It by Neil and Briar Whitehead) that debunks their theory. They will disregard the many people who have fought their way out of homosexuality as evidence that people are not born that way. This whole argument is a farce and if it was paraded around that people were born with a genetic predisposition to murder it would be treated with the contempt it deserves. There are a whole amount of myths about homosexuality which should be brought into the light.

"Of course your actions are your own realm but this does not allow you to interfere in other people's lives". This logic stinks of selfishness and falls down with the merest amount of scrutiny. After all we like to be wherever the celebrities and see whatever misfortune befalls them. Humans are not created in vacuums. What we do affects others. Child pornography can still be contained to the bedroom but still causes harm. Suicide seems like somebody's individual choice yet usually affects a large network of people.

When I am sinning I typically justify it to myself. In fact, if we look at the first moment that Satan appeared he whispered in Eve's ear "Did God really say...?" (Genesis 3:1). This is the most damaging lie Satan ever told because of its simplicity. It is important that we do not deceive ourselves into believing that all our actions are permissible. Any act of sexuality outside of marriage has far-reaching consequences. It is important that we are informed about the cost of our decisions even if we choose to disregard them.

When I speak out against homosexuality it is not because I am filled with hate. I feel nothing more or less towards homosexuals than any other person (now that's equality). God does not differentiate between sins. Lying, murder and lust have the same spiritual effect. Of course, the worldly consequences of each sin can be different.

One of my Facebook friends invited me to "be the change that you wish in the world" today. Now I am prepared to be harassed and hated for my stance because I think everyone is entitled to know a God that changes lives. Too often we let our sin define us. There is no freedom in sin. It merely ensnares and condemns. With this understanding I would be most hateful if I did not stress the dangers of homosexuality (or indeed any other sin).

We all have a dignity beyond this life yet sometimes we are too indulged on our own nefarious plans to care. The fact is rights are God-given. We are non-existent without Him. It is my wish that we think seriously about our actions and how they affect others but, more importantly, how they impact our relationship with God.

Unfortunately there are some who are using the supposed equality claims of homosexuality to hinder the message of the Gospel. In fact they are now starting to persecute Christians who stand for the truth. Barbara Hagerty, from NPR, lists how Christian groups and individuals are being both targeted and exploited for refusing to serve same-sex couples.

Not only that but there is a trend for legislature to start legally endorsing this hateful (see, I can do it too) crusade. Many of the stories of homosexual couples being refused include how the individual feels shocked, offended and angry. It is hard for me to comprehend how this could give rise to compensation. If I am refused a venue or photographer for my wedding (for whatever reason they want) I would just shrug my shoulders and find somewhere/someone else. There is no right to avoid being offended.

So I must applaud those who will stick to their guns despite the adversity they will be faced with. It seems things are going to get a lot worse unless we present a unified front. Name-calling is merely a trick employed by those who wish to continue in their sinful ways (myself included). God does not hate homosexuals, they are not sub-human. But they are selling themselves short by continuing to abuse their sexuality. We are not animals. We are not products of lust.

So unlike Couver87 in his Youtube clip above I am willing and hoping to have a conversation with people who don't agree with me. I am happy for people to disregard my advice and accept that others will not choose a Christian worldview. However, I will defend the right for Christians to stand on biblical morality without the law trampling on their liberties.

In the end I can't really be the change that I wish in this world. People do impact this world, but without God their impact is meaningless. I cannot boast on my actions, only on God's saving grace. I am not judging. In the end we are either defined by the blood of the Lamb or we are condemned.