On August 8, the bill to decriminalise abortion in NSW passed the lower house. With this bill decided a whopping 59 to 31 votes in favour, it looks set to pass the upper house when the final vote occurs in mid-September. Upon this, abortion in NSW would change from a crime carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, into something that is freely available to women.
Abortion is a terrible, immoral procedure–as recognised by sincere Christians and conservatives alike. It thereby follows that active proponents of this bill–including Alex Greenwich–are depraved and likely irredeemable as human beings. Such enemies are abundantly clear.
However, NSW babies also face ‘conservative’ enemies–who are less identifiable, but more surreptitious in impact. These cowards and opportunists claim conservative values and tap into ostensibly Right-wing sentiment, exploiting good people for their own personal, temporal gains.
One of these figures is the NSW premier, Gladys Berejiklian. Now, let us generously assume she is a heartfelt Christian. Despite this and her paramount role in NSW politics, Gladys has not mustered any courage to oppose the bill. In fact, she voted for its passage on August 8.
What could justify such a vote from a statedly Christian, “very conservative” politician?
Her recent interview with Ben Fordham gives us a useful insight. Additionally, this interview captures much of the losing mindset of modern-day conservatives. Asked by Fordham whether she would personally have an abortion, Gladys opined,
I’m not someone who would be comfortable going through that process. But that’s just me. I can’t speak for other women, it’s not my place … I can’t make a vote according to me and my beliefs.
So in the meekest, most inoffensive way, Gladys said she wouldn’t have an abortion, with her ‘faith’ earlier referenced in support.
This is similar to what Tony Abbott said while Prime Minister, promising his ‘faith’ would be excluded from political decision-making. But this notion is ridiculous on its face. Believing in the Christian teaching on abortion, for Gladys, this is not some abstract hypothetical we are talking about–it is the will of God. As a believer, Gladys should act on her Christian values; not shirk, allowing individuals to trade on their own private stock of reason, thus permitting the barbaric act of abortion.
It is incomprehensible that Gladys, as a Christian believes we have immortal souls, yet for political expediency is prepared to abet and even vote to legalise abortion. For Gladys, fear of God has been transplanted by vacuous Liberal cliches–an utterly irrational view.
There is another issue with Christians, such as Gladys, purporting to take the high ground by separating religion from politics. Regardless of whether Christians refuse to act according to their ‘beliefs,’ political power remains. And those who would and can yield it, will. Abortion is not simply a private matter: as a moral issue, the legalisation of abortion would divide NSW; distinct human beings would be killed; great trauma would be inflicted upon expectant fathers of executed babies.
Further to that, political developments cannot be viewed in isolation. Certain changes beget others: as Pat Buchanan said, man’s perpetual lust for power means “it is in the nature of nations and religions that they rule or are ruled.”
So Gladys may be eluding this particular controversial battle, as conservatives have a habit of doing. But the war doesn’t stop here: federal funding for abortion and horrific late-term abortions both follow once a women’s ‘right to choose’ is secured.
As for future efforts to decompose traditional sexual mores and customs? We already see drag queens entertaining children at public libraries; so increased child exposure to pornography, the end of private religious education, and open pedophilia don’t appear to be outrageously unforeseeable phenomena. The destructive, unstable nature of Leftism only underscores these possibilities. As Ted Kaczynski put it,
Suppose you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social “evil” to correct because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his solutions on society.
Leftism and cultural degeneracy pursued in the name of sexual emancipation will not cease at any defined point, in either the public or private spheres. This means it is a folly for conservatives to believe that any lasting appeasement is possible.