Light. Shine. Bright.
March for The Babies is marking the 10th anniversary of their continuing stand against the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act 2008.
Victoria’s abortion law passed 11 years ago. It defines abortion as ‘intentionally causing the termination of a woman’s pregnancy by – using an instrument; drug, combination of drugs or any other means.’
The law allows for this violent interruption of a pregnancy up to 24 weeks without question. It also allows for abortions past 24 weeks, if a Doctor ‘reasonably believes that the abortion is appropriate and has consulted at least one other medical practitioner who agrees’ with the assessment.
Much like the contentious NSW Abortion bill which was recently passed with few amendments to protect the life of the unborn, the ambiguous rubric for assessment post 24 weeks, includes taking into consideration ‘all relevant medical circumstances’ along with the mother’s ‘current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances.’
March for the Babies aims to advance awareness through remembrance and peaceful witness. They assert the civil rights of the unborn, while also providing assistance to women in crisis pregnancies. The pro-life group also supports the right for medical practitioners to withdraw from assisting or carrying out an abortion if it goes against their conscience.
Although Victorian abortion law makes room for conscientious objection, the law maintains that a medical “health” practitioner has a duty to perform or assist an abortion if the situation is determined to ‘be necessary in order to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.’
Similar to the New South Wales version of abortion law, the Victorian abortion law also has no amendments to prevent the trade in body parts from an aborted child.
March for the Babies gathers every October in order to create awareness about this unethical law and hold it to account.
This year’s march for the abolition of abortion will be held on Saturday, 12th October, at 1pm, beginning at Treasury Gardens, Spring Street East Melbourne. This year’s march will also mark 10 years of peaceful protests, featuring Daughters of the King Choir and a range of speakers.
The call for the abolition of abortion is the anti-slavery issue of our age.
As Victorian Liberal M.P. Bernie Finn said,
“11 years ago, the Victorian Parliament removed all legal protection for children before birth. Babies can be killed for any reason at any time right up until they would otherwise be born. Doctors and nurses are forced by law to participate or refer to a medico who will commit the abortion. Join us as we March for the Babies and reject these heinous laws!”
First published on Caldron Pool, 27th September, 2019.
In June 2017, online economist magazine Quartz, predicted that ‘as climate changes effects become harsher and more unexpected climate change could become even harder to study’.
Quartz was buffing up an incident where scientists from Canada, out researching the impact of sea ice on Hudson Bay became hindered by what is alleged to have been large chunks of ice from the Arctic blocking their way. Quartz called these ‘severe conditions’ the consequence of climate change.
As reported by Phys.org the scientists had to abandon their trip over safety concerns. Lead researchers on the expedition were adamant that the ice was from the Arctic, saying that they ‘were able to use the state-of-the-art equipment onboard the Amundsen to confirm that a significant proportion of the sea ice present originated’ from the there.
However, as NASA’s earth observatory pointed out, Hudson Bay is well known for pack ice. The bay is ‘shallow and surrounded by land, Hudson Bay freezes over completely in the winter but thaws for periods in the summer. Usually all of the sea ice is gone by August, and the bay begins to freeze over in October or November. In between, as the sea ice is breaking up, winds and currents cause flotillas of pack ice to cluster in certain parts of the bay.’
According to NASA, this is what was happening in June, 2017, the same month the Canadian climate change research team claimed to have had to stop their research due to ice coming from the “high Arctic”. NASA not only clearly contradicted Phys.org and Quartz, but also added that the ice was good for the wildlife, because ‘the rhythms of sea ice play a central role in the lives of the animals of Hudson Bay, particularly polar bears. When the bay is topped with ice, polar bears head out to hunt for seals and other prey. When the ice melts in the summer, the bears swim to shore, where they fast until sea ice returns.’
If this doesn’t raise red flags about the apocalyptic climate change narrative, along with the fear, logical fallacies and panic it breeds, look no further than two recent incidents where climate change researchers had to be rescued because, they too, were hindered by ice.
This July, Norwegian research Ice breaker, Crown Prince Haakon, had to change direction. According to the Captain, they ran into ‘ice thicker than expected.’ Multiple sites[i] reported the news, with only one offering a different explanation, citing ‘loose bolts in the shaft seal of the propeller housing as the cause.’
The second incident occurred on September 3rd, when the MS Malmo had to be abandoned after getting stuck in ice. According to Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun, the Malmo’s current tour got ‘stuck in ice halfway between Norway and the North Pole. The ship was on an Arctic tour with a Climate Change documentary film team, and tourists, concerned with climate change and melting ice.’
This necessitated a rescue mission where all sixteen passengers (climate change “researchers”) were evacuated. Cruise Industry news also said that although it was ‘windy and snowing, the captain and crew on board would remain on board, anticipating the ice to break up, from where they can then take the ship out into open water.’
These incidents aren’t isolated. In 2014, a Chinese Icebreaker ended up stuck in ice, while on a rescue mission to evacuate 52 people from a Russian tour ship also trapped in ice. The Telegraph’s Harriet Alexander wrote that ‘the Akademik Shokalskiy, became wedged in ice on Christmas Eve as it was heading towards Antarctica. In preparing to rescue the passengers, the Chinese owned, Snow Dragon got wedged in ice.’
The first victims of the apocalyptic climate change narrative are those who find themselves stranded at sea because they encounter ice, where they’ve been told ice should no longer be. Ignoring maritime precautions because of climate change hype and propaganda is putting lives at risk. This includes the unnecessarily risking the lives of those who are called in to respond to the consequences of such willful ignorance.
All of these examples raise red flags about the apocalyptic climate change narrative. Add to these examples the widespread misuse of the word ‘denier’ for anyone, like Scientist Peter Ridd (et.al) who question the prevailing scientific consensus turned dogma, and I’d say the real concern lies in how many people are refusing to look before they leap.
The Bolt Report illustrated this rising contemporary problem when they uncovered a 25 year old documentary that inadvertently challenges the walrus “apocalyptic climate change” claims in the Netflix, David Attenborough documentary Our Planet, which shows walruses falling off of cliffs. It boggles the mind, how so many people today leap before they look.
We need to look after our environment. I’m not disputing that. We have a responsibility to care for the creatures and earth entrusted to us. We have a duty of care to pass on healthy tradition, allowing that tradition to guide progress towards preservation, better technology and energy practices, but this must be done rationally, respectfully and with a filter that separates the sacred from absolute stupidity.
If those who hold to apocalyptic climate change tell us to trust their interpretation of the science, and yet, at the same time tell us to ignore the biological determinism which tells us plainly that there are only two genders, why should we take them seriously?
If advocates of the climate change narrative are using the same manipulative propaganda tools that were used in the push for gay “marriage”, and it’s denial of biological reproduction and physiological compatibility, why should we take them seriously?
If those who hold to this narrative are all too ready to dismiss questions and opposing viewpoints with ad hominem, straw men and abuse; where people who apply critical reasoning to the issues are hit with the accusation “denier”, a term that does immediate violence (every time it’s used) to the memory of those who suffered under the Nazi extermination of the Jews, why should we surrender and follow blindly?
If any contemporary holocaust “deniers” do exist, it’s the many who deny the biological reality of human life from conception to birth and beyond?!
Why should advocates of the apocalyptic climate change narrative (such as The Greens) be trusted when most of them deny that the duty of care for the environment first starts with care for those in the womb, the vulnerable, the aged, and the wounded? How can they be trusted with the kind of power they’re demanding, when cows grazing in state forests, or a farmer making a dam to improve land management, is made illegal, but a mother having a doctor kill and dismember her child in the womb is fair game? There’s an inescapable dissonance.
If fanatics fearing apocalyptic climate change are looking to label anything a holocaust, equal to The Holocaust of the 1930-40s, all they have to do is look in the bloodthirsty direction of industrial scale abortion, not the well-scripted, manipulative narrative of so-called anthropogenic apocalyptic climate change.
First published on Caldron Pool, 11th September, 2019
© Rod Lampard, 2019
In a speech on Tuesday night, One Nation MP, Mark Latham, joined a growing chorus of opposition voicing their concerns over the poor process applied to the recent NSW abortion bill. Latham joins Liberal MP Natasha Maclaren-Jones, the National Party’s, Barnaby Joyce and Dr. David Gillespie, in criticising the rushed bill, deceptively called ‘The Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill’.
The abortion bill passed the lower house (legislative assembly) by 59 to 31 on August 9. The MP responsible for introducing the bill was “Independent” member for Sydney, Alex Greenwich, whose candidacy (for context) was backed by Leftist golden girl, and Lord Mayor of Sydney City, Clover Moore.
Criticism of the nature of the abortion bill has been growing since its surprise introduction to the NSW Parliament. Coinciding with this is criticism of how the bill was introduced, handled and pushed through the assembly, with very little time given for debate, and consultation with the public.
In an apparent response to growing opposition against the bill, including large passionate pro-life, non-violent protests, Andrew Clennell from the Australian said on Wednesday that NSW Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, ‘had backed down on pushing the abortion bill through the states upper house this week.’
Clennell also outlined Mark Latham’s ‘stunning attack on the Premier’.
The One Nation MP, ‘accused Berejiklian of betraying the parliament and the people of NSW, labeling her dictatorial, and claimed she had allowed MPs from all parties to work together on the legislation in an erosion of the two party system’.
Latham called the alleged clandestine group, ‘a cross party cabal of left-wing MPs, who had been meeting in secret for months, plotting to hijack the parliament and ram’ the bill through both lower and upper houses.’
Talking with Paul Murray and Rita Panahi, Latham unpacked reasons for his attack on the Premier’s betrayal and lack of leadership, stating,
‘I’m heavily critical of the process because it’s all wrong and I’m a great believer in good lawmaking that relies on good process…The tragedy of this is that the upper house is wiped of its proper functions as a house of review. We could have had a six-week committee; instead we got one for five minutes. Proponents of the bill, (who met in secret, didn’t invite comment from the public, and didn’t involve the full range of experts) have denied themselves two very important qualities on a sensitive and divisive issue like this, and that’s credibility and legitimacy. These people look sneaky, these people look dictatorial. They just want to ram it through because they have none of the argument, but some of the numbers; the Premier has facilitated this bad process.’
Latham then (rightly) said his protest of the process, is legitimized by how advocates of the bill were now stumbling over whether or not they should support a gender-selection amendment.
Liberal Party MP, Tanya Davies, member for Mulgoa, sparked concern about the contents of the abortion bill when she ‘sought to include an amendment stating that terminations not “be used for gender selection”. Although, Davies’ amendment ‘was rejected because it was [deemed] unnecessary and unworkable,’ the Premier and opposition leader have signaled support for a gender-selection ban.
However, as Michael McGowan of The Guardian said, overall, ‘backers of the bill are unlikely to support one’. (The Guardian)
One of the reasons for this is that the gender-selection amendment is viewed as a right-wing ploy to derail the legitimacy of the bill. This is despite the serious lack of consultation with the public and the inadequate handling of procedure, which has already destabilized the bill, via the secretive, unprofessional and frantic way it’s being pushed through parliament.
Other notable outspoken critics of both the bill and its contents included Federal Member for Lyne, Dr. David Gillespie.
Gillespie went against his state LNP colleague Leslie Williams (a co-sponsor of the abortion bill), saying, ‘the legislation is unnecessary because abortion was “decriminalized in 1971 and it is not a crime if you have a lawful abortion (the rare case when a pregnancy is deemed life threatening) in NSW”.
As reported by the Wauchope Gazette, ‘Dr Gillespie, who previously worked as the director of physician training at Port Macquarie Base Hospital’, stated,
“You are dealing with abortion of a human being that has got a separate circulation and nervous system; all those things make up a human being. A child in the womb is another human being and deserves protection. A child doesn’t miraculously become a human being once it pops out at delivery.”
Gillespie also criticized the rushed nature of the bill, saying ‘if the Government wanted to take the community with them they should have at least more than five days to debate it…” Given that ‘a hastily formed enquiry into the bill after community backlash received 13,000 submissions in one day, causing the state parliaments web portal to temporarily crash.’
None of these criticisms are easily dismissed. Gladys Berejiklian’s premiership is slowly reflecting that of William Golding’s character, Ralph in Lord of the Flies. Jack has taken over and the whim of the bureaucratic caste has now become law.
Of course, Gladys Berejiklian, as Premier has the prerogative. Her next move, after delaying the deceptively named, ‘Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill’, should be to stand up and ditch the bill, instead of applauding those all too eager to ditch babies.
First published on Caldron Pool, 27th August 2019.
Photo credit: Creative commons.
©Rod Lampard, 2019
In her 1981 magnus opus, ‘Public Man, Private Woman’, American political scientist and Lutheran, Jean Bethke Elshtain presented a painstaking analysis of feminism.
Her work as a political theorist is one of the best all rounded academic introductions to the origins and branches of feminism, which comes from within the feminist movement.
Elshtain is best described as a classical feminist. Although she accepts certain criticisms made by feminists, Elshtain is honest about the fact that feminism can, and does go too far. Her chief aim was to present the ideological nuances and obvious contrasts of each branch of feminism.
What makes ‘Public Man, Private Woman’ unique is how her experiences within the feminist movement, particularly radical feminism, allow her a high degree of objectivity.
In the late 1960s, Elshtain and a friend were confronted by the exclusionist ideology of feminist supremacism.
They both linked up with a feminist group, only to find themselves silenced because they raised genuine questions about the prevalent anti-familial force within feminism. According to Elshtain, they attended the group, looking for a community who could help them embrace both the healthier side of early feminist critique and motherhood. However, they soon found out that for some within the feminist movement, there was no reconciling of the two. In the middle of her friend’s turn to speak, the group’s facilitator ‘abruptly and publicly’ cut off their discussion declaring, “We will have not diaper talk here. We’re here to talk about women’s liberation”.
Elshtain recalled, ‘my friend and I left, for we could not treat our children as abstractions, as nuisances to be overcome, or as evidence of our “sad capitulation” to the terms of patriarchy.’
Alarmed by her confrontation with female supremacist exclusivism, Elshtain not only saw the dangers it presented to those outside the feminist movement, but how female supremacist ideology threatens legitimate feminist criticisms about what defines a woman, and how women define themselves in the traditionally male dominant public space.
Other than a general analysis of the state of feminism in 1980-81, Elshtain was also preoccupied with a personal quest, seeking to answer the nagging question about whether feminism could be reconciled with motherhood. And if so, what kind of worldview would this look like?
Her conclusion rejects Marxist feminism, Liberal Feminism and Radical feminism, and instead embraces a politics of compassion which works towards reconstructing a woman’s place in public and private, by ‘truth-seeking’, not ‘truth-construction’.
Elshtain describes a ‘politics of compassion’ as a ‘robust opposition to despair and cynicism’, noting it as being a ‘recognition [on the part of feminists] that no good can come from the widespread dehumanization and destruction of others.’ This would help protect legitimate parts of feminist criticisms, because a politics of compassion recognizes that feminism is undermined by a radical feminist supremacism which feeds on ‘the enchanting lures of resentment and the poisonous destruction of rage.’
Abortion isn’t a key concern for Elshtain. However, her conclusions and personal experience are relevant to the abortion debate.
Elshtain agrees that reproduction doesn’t define women. However, feminism shouldn’t reject the stability of the familial unit. It should be mature and flexible enough to embrace the unique-to-woman, gift of reproduction and maternalism. Motherhood shouldn’t be so easily thrown out by the feminist critique. This is because motherhood is the quintessential definition of an empowered, liberated woman. Strength and servant leadership are a core elements of being a mother. The woman capable of choosing to look, not just to their own needs, but also to the needs of others is not only liberated, but engages in the act of liberating others.
What Elshtain offers is clarity. Her criticism of the feminist crowd, which was ironically awakened by the feminist crowd’s rejection of her (as a patriarchal cliché, because she was married and had children) gives us a vantage point from which we can join with her and say,
‘the presumption that some universally true, ubiquitous, and pervasive misogynistic urge explains everything is simplistic and wrong.’ (p.xv)
When it comes to abortion and the feminist death grip on it, there will be disagreement, but that disagreement doesn’t have to be destructive. There is another way around the ‘radical and destructive social surgery’ pushed by those who demand uniformity in an ideological alignment with abortion and its accompanying progressive platform.
Elshtain’s inherent “no” to this kind of forced allegiance, especially to supremacist ideology is something to applaud. Her “no” is spoken from under the shadow of remembrance, as she recalls the blood that followed the ‘Nazis and Stalinists, the most destructive instances so far of this sort.’
‘if everything every basis of human existence, every rule and prohibition not excluding the incest taboo, is “up for grabs,” those who unscrupulously grab will inherit the earth and we will no longer have the earth as out inheritance…Each successive generation must respect some moral necessities, must have some “taken for granted,” rules without which even the minimal aspects of a human existence that propelled our prehistoric ancestors to place flowers on the graves of their beloved, will be jeopardized.’
This supremacist ideology is seen in abortion advocates adoption of Simone de Beauvoir’s incongruent use of the term ‘parasite’ in reference to both women and the fetus (The Second Sex).
Supremacist ideology is prevalent in the inherent historical parallels between the Nazi doctrine of “life unworthy of life” and deceptive new term for abortion, “reproductive healthcare”. Abortion is an outworking of radical feminist supremacism. The “choice” argument underpins this because it advocates the totalitarian supremacy of a mother over against the life of her unborn child and the choice of his or her father.
How is a woman living out her liberation, if she’s coerced to kill her unborn child because of pressure from a pro-abortion society, state and peers, in the name of what they deceptively call freedom?
How is a woman living our her liberation if all the information necessary to make the best “choice” possible is hidden from her by her pro-abortion society, state, and peers– “for her own good”?
It would seem that the liberated woman, under the shadow of pro-abortion and the supremacist ideology of Marxist, liberal and radical feminism, is not so liberated after all.
We cannot miss this point. We cannot afford to overlook the fact that pro-abortion, and even pro-euthanasia laws, remove protections for the citizen against a tyrannical state. They remove protections for citizens from supremacist ideology.
Anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia laws are restraints that don’t just apply to one individual having absolute power over another; they hold back the overreach of despotic, crony corporations and these laws restrain the creation of authoritarian governments. These are necessary limitations which protect freedom, rather than being a denial of it.
So it is that we should, and can legitimately stand with Jean Bethke Elshtain and those like her, such as the brilliant Dr. Mildred Jefferson, and say:
“Today it is the unborn child; tomorrow it is likely to be the elderly or those who are incurably ill. Who knows but that a little later it may be anyone who has political or moral views that do not fit into the distorted new order?[i]…I am not willing to stand aside and allow this concept of expendable human lives to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged and the planned, have the right to live [ii]…I say “no” and I am not willing to give up the role of doctor as healer to become the new social executioner…If the destruction of life is permissible for social and economic reasons, why not for political reasons? [iii]”
References (not otherwise linked):
Elshtain, J. 1981, ‘Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social & Political Thought’ Princeton University Press
First published on Caldron Pool, 13th August, 2019
©Rod Lampard, 2019
Here’s a copy of my recent letter to Melinda Pavey asking for her to consider voting against the abortion bill currently before the NSW parliament.
To the Hon. Melinda Pavey, MP,
I am a member of your Oxley electorate. As such I encourage you to vote “no” to the current abortion bill before the NSW state parliament.
The popular ideology behind abortion leads advocates of abortion to convince society that conceiving a child is the same as contracting a sexually transmitted disease. A “yes” vote would see the dehumanizing of an unborn human child by lending legitimacy to this ideology. Therefore, reducing an unborn child to a treatable ailment.
This bill, will, by all appearances, wrongfully legitimize this vile misconception, and industrialize the violent disruption of an unborn child’s life, denying them their right to life. No amount of ideological arguments from fanatics and the false doctrines spawned from them in favour of abortion, change the biological fact that abortion is the deliberate violent interruption of pregnancy. This is where women (and some men on behalf of women) demand the kind of freedom only God should own; the ability for an expectant mother to judge who is worthy of life and who isn’t. The God-like ability to decide who lives or dies, by encouraging the killing of an unborn child through ”miscarrying on demand”.
Under this shadow, abortion is as a matter of fact, another manifestation of lebensunwertes leben (The Nazi ideology of life [deemed] unworthy of life).
Although advocates of abortion use a healthcare pretence, may I remind you that “the Nazi group in charge of the actual killing in the gas chambers was called the General Welfare Foundation for Institutional Care…’ (Dean Stroud, 2013 ‘Preaching in Hitler’s Shadow: Sermons of Resistance’ Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing pp.132 & 136)
As summed up by anti-Nazi theologian Karl Barth:
‘he who destroys germinating life kills a man and thus ventures the monstrous thing of decreeing concerning the life and death of a fellow-man whose life is given by God and therefore, like his own, belongs to Him. He desires to discharge a divine office, or, even if not, he accepts responsibility for such discharge, by daring to have the last word on at least the temporal form of the life of his fellow-man. Those directly or indirectly involved cannot escape this responsibility.’ (CD.3:4:416)
Despite the claims of radical activists, particularly extreme feminists, children are not a parasite or a hindrance. Children are a gift. Give them the chance to live and become part of the future of our country.
These are strong, valid reasons for why I reject abortion. I humbly ask that you consider doing the same.
Mr. Rod Lampard
©Rod Lampard, 2019
An Emily’s Voice promotional which featured the words, “a heart beats at four weeks”, on four Newcastle buses has been removed. The action was taken after an outraged Newcastle resident accused the pro-life promotional material of being “dangerous propaganda; a guilt driven directive on what [a woman should] do with their body.”
The complaint was posted on Facebook to the NSW Transport minister’s page and “action was immediately taken’’ to tear the material down.
Emily’s voice is an organization that seeks to encourage people to consider alternatives to abortion. Their mission is to ‘help Australians fall in love with the unborn, and to support women with an unplanned or crisis pregnancy’.
The current Emily’s Voice campaign is to encourage a rethink about abortion. Paul O’Rourke, the CEO of Emily’s Voice, told the Herald Sun that,
“There are Govt. campaigns to reduce smoking, the road toll, cancer and heart disease. Surely there’s a place to reduce abortion which claims more Aussie lives each year than any other cause?”
O’Rourke’s complete explanation was posted in full onto the Emily’s Voice website,
‘[Emily’s Voice] is seeking to restart and reshape the life conversation in a sensible, sensitive way free of guilt and condemnation so women make an informed choice.
We are pro-women and for-children.
The ads promote notbornyet.com containing relevant and timely information for women experiencing an unplanned or crisis pregnancy, including where to get practical, free support.
Most Australians are unaware there are an estimated 70,000 abortions, 95 per cent of which are performed on healthy women carrying healthy children.”
There are four toxic messages being reinforced by the Government’s reactionary removal of such benign campaign material.
First, is the double standard that says it is okay to demand that the government fund and support abortion, but not okay for the government to support awareness about alternatives to abortion.
Second, the false belief that conceiving a child is equal to having contracted a sexually transmitted disease. Consequently, abortion is reduced to being equal with the treatment to remove an STD. If you openly disagree with this, you’re harming women.
Third, the false claim that only pro-abortion people care about women.
Lastly, educating people about biology and implicitly reminding them of their responsibilities and humane obligations, in response to the natural biological consequences of sex, is apparently now regarded as “hate speech” and propaganda.
Jean Elshtain, feminist and mother of four, one of whom was a disabled child, noted,
‘without allowing Right-to-Life women to speak the truth as they understand it, without engaging them from a stand that respects uncoerced dialogue […] we will continue to treat them in distorted, presumptuous, and prejudicial ways.’
In other words, if outraged individuals continue to suppress dissenting voices and opinions that they find offensive, or simply just don’t want to hear, those individuals will never hear anything other than the sound of their own voices. This is the very definition of an echo chamber.
There is an alternative to abortion. Emily’s Voice wants to not only give a voice to that, they want to stand with, by and alongside women who chose to take up that alternative.
This isn’t “dangerous propaganda or guilt driven directives”. It is respect for human life in all of its stages. This is the active ‘appreciation of biological facts; a radical feeling of awe at the mystery and value of all human life made in the image of God’; and it is the honest recognition that ‘every deliberate interruption of pregnancy, whatever the circumstances, is a taking of human life.’
What is dangerous is elected officials giving directives based on a Facebook comment (as appears to be the case in this instance). In this the discerning citizen faces the same heavy rod on their backs that has been thrown down by the whim of the ruler in centuries past.
Instead of Transport minister, Andrew Constance being “appalled” by Emily’s Voice, he should have applauded the care in which they took to communicate such a difficult topic in a positive way.
 Ibid, 2019.
 Elshtain, J.B. 1981. Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political thought, Princeton University Press (p.312)
 Karl Barth, 1961. CD. 3:IV Freedom for Life: The Protection of Life, Hendrickson Publishers, (p.419)
Originally published on Caldron Pool 24th June 2019
© Rod Lampard, 2019