Health Secretary Favours Lowering of Abortion Limit
The Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has said in an interview that he is in favour of lowering the time limit for abortion in the UK to 12 weeks. Since then, several Cabinet members have also come out in support of lowering the limit, although not by as much as Mr Hunt suggests. Currently, women are able to request an abortion until the twenty-fourth week of their pregnancy.
While there is no prospect at present of the iniquitous Abortion Act of 1967 being repealed, it is good to hear of any step in the direction of lowering the number of abortions in the country – about 190 000 in England and Wales in 2011 (that is, 17 abortions per 1000 women). In Scotland the figure is 12 abortions per 1000 women.
Of course, pro-abortionists have objected strongly to the Health Secretary’s
expressed view – not least Lord Steel, the architect of the 1967 Act. He does not think there is any need for lowering the UK abortion rate because it “is similar to that of other European countries”. In fact, as figures from the World Health Organisation show, while the UK abortion rate is slightly above the European average, it is considerably greater than the average for Western Europe – indeed it is the third highest, nearer the average rate for the formerly-Communist countries of Eastern Europe (about 20 abortions per 1000 women).
We hope that more members of government will speak up in support of Jeremy Hunt’s view and that the debate will really be re-ignited. However much pro-abortionists may vociferate, such legislation as the 1967 Abortion Act will disappear when the gospel will prevail – an objective for which we pray. “Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction” (Prov 31:8). NMR
Same-Sex “Marriage”
The “Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill” is one of 15 new bills announced by the Scottish Government in its legislative programme for 2012-13. This bill has been formulated with the express intention of legalising same-sex “marriage” in Scotland. Last year the SNP Government, led by Alex Salmond, consulted with the Scottish people, to “listen” to their views on the subject. Two-thirds of the 77 508 who responded are against any change in the law on marriage. It would seem then that Mr Salmond has gone against the will of those with whom he consulted. Is this democratic?
Solemnly, while we value democracy, it is not the will of the Scottish people that is paramount here. Mr Salmond is going against the will of a holy God who hates everything about this sinful proposal. There never should have been a consultation, far less such an immoral bill. Mr Salmond sees it very differently. He glibly states, “In promoting a fairer Scotland we will legislate for equal rights. Our Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill will enable same-sex couples to get married, and will allow civil partnerships to be registered through a religious ceremony”. He adds, “The new parliamentary session promises to be a pivotal one in the history of this country”, and then makes the promise, “No part of the religious community would be forced to hold same-sex weddings in churches”. But can we believe him?
Other countries provide a sobering picture. The Canadian Government legalised same-sex “marriage” in 2005. Within 5 years, over 200 cases had been brought against individuals, mostly professing Christians, who opposed it in the public domain. A TV presenter was immediately dismissed after posting his support for “the traditional and true meaning of marriage” on a social
network. One Christian organisation in Ontario, working with disabled people, was taken to court after objecting to the same-sex “marriage” of one of its employees. It was ordered to change its employment policy or close down. A minister in Saskatchewan was successfully sued for refusing to “marry” a homosexual couple even though he agreed to put them in contact with a minister prepared to conduct the “marriage”.
A campaign has now begun in Canada to remove tax-free status from churches that refuse to perform those ceremonies and, significantly, a Mormon is taking legal action in support of polygamy. He argues: If marriage can be redefined to allow same-sex “marriage”, why not have multiple spouses? A spokesman for National Review Online says, “Once ‘gay marriage’ becomes law, critics are often silenced by the force of law. The Canadian litany of pain, firings, and social and political polarisation and extremism is extraordinary and lamentable. . . . Learn something from Canada.”
The Westminster Government is no less fixated on changing the law. Prime Minister David Cameron is adamant that he wants to legalise same-sex “marriage” in Britain by 2015, even though the national press indicates that the Conservative Party stands to lose millions of church-goers’ votes if he presses on. Andrea Williams of Christian Concern warns, “If same sex ‘marriage’ became legal in the UK we are likely to witness a similar surge of proceedings brought against Christians . . . who will be penalised for having a biblical sexual ethic”. And she comments, “Religious freedom and freedom of speech will be crushed. Is this what we want for the UK?”
Aiden O’Neill QC, an expert in human rights law, maintains that if the Government changes the law it will have far-reaching consequences for schools, hospitals and foster carers. His opinion is that teachers who refuse to use storybooks about same-sex “marriage” could possibly be dismissed. Stonewall, the homosexual activist group, has already sent out packs to some primary schools providing teachers with pro-homosexual picture books for classroom reading. Parents may be unable to withdraw their children from such classes. NHS chaplains who preach about traditional marriage in church may well be disciplined under the Equality Law and foster carers voicing opposition to homosexual “marriage” could be considered unsuitable candidates by social workers.
We can have little confidence in our political leaders when we hear our Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, calling those who oppose same-sex “marriage” “bigots”. Due to address a party for celebrity supporters of same-sex “marriage” in London, his speech was released to the media beforehand. He swiftly tried to cover his tracks by claiming that his office was to blame and hastily changed the text to “some people”.
We are on a downward moral spiral and God’s holy law is ignored. While it is wise to look at the history of countries such as Canada, how much wiser to look at biblical history; we read in Genesis 18:20,21: “And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down”. We know what fearful judgements fell on them shortly afterwards. Is our nation any less guilty when, in spite of all the warnings, it seeks to make sodomy appear respectable? We need to cry to the Lord to pour out His Holy Spirit on us and deliver us from this fearful evil. It is heartening to see that Australian politicians have overwhelmingly rejected a bill to legalise same-sex “marriage”. May our politicians do the same in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. KHM
Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve
One of the discoveries of modern genetics is that the genes of human beings differ less from one another than was expected. Out of three billion “base pairs”, two human beings will typically differ from each other at about three million places, or about 1 place in 1000. Evolutionary geneticists concede that this points to a recent common ancestry for man, although “recent” in evolutionary terms is much longer than the time-scale allowed by the Bible.
The names the geneticists give to these common ancestors are “Y-Chromosomal Adam”, who is defined to be the most recent ancestor, in the male line, of all living men, and “Mitochondrial Eve” who is defined to be the most recent ancestor, in the female line, of all living women. The reason for these names is that fathers transmit the entire Y-chromosome to their sons while women transmit the entire mitochondrial DNA to their children of both sexes. Thus, in principle, the Y-chromosome could be traced back to “Y-Chromosomal Adam” and the mitochondrial DNA to “Mitochondrial Eve”.
In the transmission, however, there are occasional small mutations which accumulate down the generations. It is these mutations which account for the variations in the Y-chromosome among men and in the mitochondrial DNA among people of both sexes. Presumably these mutations are part of the general curse on creation (Gen 3:17). One consequence of them, however, is that a knowledge of genetics can be used in the study of genealogy and ancestry. If two men share a common mutation in their Y-chromosome then they probably have a common ancestor – nearer than Noah – from whom they inherited this mutation. Thus a full understanding and tracing of these mutations might permit something like a mapping of a large part of the human race.
At the moment the mitochondrial DNA of the supposed body of Richard III, found during recent excavations in Leicester, is being tested against the
mitochondrial DNA of a man living in Canada who is a descendant in the female line of Richard’s sister. If the DNA matches at sufficiently many “markers”, then the body will almost certainly be that of Richard III.
One cannot help thinking that evolutionary geneticists may be venturing on dangerous ground as far as their theories are concerned. Their researches are likely to throw up more and more problems for evolution and to uncover increasing evidence in favour of the biblical account of the origin and history of mankind. Already we have “Y-Chromosomal Adam” (Noah, in fact) and “Mitochondrial Eve” (possibly Eve herself: Noah’s wife had no daughters so “Mitochondrial Eve” is the nearest ancestor in the female line of the three wives of Noah’s sons). Furthermore “Mitochondrial Eve” is reckoned to have lived earlier than “Y-Chromosomal Adam”, which fits in with the biblical data. Again, “Y-Chromosomal Adam” is supposed to have lived at a “bottleneck” when some natural disaster had severely reduced the human race. The Bible gives an account of a “bottleneck” at the time of Noah, namely the Flood.
Similarly, recent work on the genetic composition of races points to a triangular distribution. The Bible would suggest that the three corners probably represent Shem, Ham and Japheth. If the early chapters of Genesis were mythological then such coincidences would be astonishing. Evolutionary geneticists should allow themselves to be guided by the biblical information, rather than fighting against it.
DWBS