Truth and the culture of death

Last week I mentioned how pro-abortion activists were attacking pro-life crisis pregnancy centres in the UK. They mirror what is happening in the US.

The culture of death is getting desperate, American theologian Albert Mohler says on his blog. War, he says, has been declared on crisis pregnancy centres:

First in Baltimore and then in New York City, municipal governments passed laws intended to shut down or curtail the work of crisis pregnancy centers in their cities. The crisis pregnancy centers have been among the most important platforms for saving unborn human lives and reasserting human dignity. This is especially true in more recent years, as many of these centers have begun using sophisticated ultrasound imaging technologies in order to show pregnant women the unborn babies within them.

These centers are staffed by brave workers and an army of volunteers who are committed to counsel women against killing their unborn babies. The ultrasound images have been massively important in this counseling process. Once the woman sees the unborn life within her, the chances of that baby surviving to live birth are tremendously enhanced.

As one abortion rights activist famously declared "The fetus beat us." When the fetus is seen for what it really is, the mother has a much harder time deciding to abort it. Crisis pregnancy centers generally offer a variety of services, ranging from counseling and adoption services to medical care and support for new mothers. All this is too much for the abortion industry, which rightly sees crisis pregnancy centers as their increasingly powerful opposition. . .

Forty percent of all pregnancies in New York City end in abortion (and fully 60 percent of all pregnancies to African American women). Those horrendous and chilling percentages are evidently not enough for the abortion industry and its ideological supporters. They want to shut down crisis pregnancy centers or render them ineffective. . .

Now, city officials in San Francisco have launched their own effort to shutter crisis pregnancy centers, claiming the staff at the centers impose "anti-abortion propaganda and mistruths on unsuspecting women."

Albert Mohler concludes:

Crisis pregnancy centers deserve the support of all who cherish the sanctity of life, the defense of the unborn, and the right of free speech. As defenders of life, crisis pregnancy centers should be committed to nothing less than comprehensive truth-telling. It is the Culture of Death, not the Culture of Life, that fears the truth.

One further point: There is no doubt that ultrasound imaging equipment has been a valuable tool in the US in persuading women to keep their babies. Crisis pregnancy centres in the UK are generally staffed by unpaid volunteers and run by organisations not overburdened with cash. When are pro-life organisations in Britain going to be able to afford ultrasound equipment?

'I had to watch my baby die'

Sarah Capewell gave birth to her son in hospital. He was moving about, breathing unaided and had a strong heartbeat, his mother says.

But doctors wouldn't come and treat him because he was too premature. "They won't come and help, sweetie," the midwife told her. "Make the best of the time you have with him."

Miss Capewell watched her baby die less than two hours later. Staff at the hospital told her if her son had been born two days later, they would have tried to help him. She is now campaigning for a review of the medical guidelines.

Sarah Fisher was pregnant with twins. One of the twins, Emie, died when she was born at 21 weeks. Doctors told Miss Fisher she had an infection and the other twin would not survive. They recommended an abortion. Twelve hours before she had to give doctors her decision, Jacob put in an appearance at 23 weeks, weighing 1lb 4oz. Five months later, he has been allowed home - Britain's most premature surviving twin.

Mrs Emma Allen gave birth to identical twins at 23 weeks at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital. There was no blanket policy at the hospital about resuscitating premature babies, so Mrs Allen was given the choice. She opted to go ahead. One twin died, but Charlie pulled through and is now five years old and thriving.

At present it is up to individual health trusts to decide whether to follow NHS guidelines on not resuscitating babies born before 24 weeks.

So should such premature babies be resuscitated?

London neonatal paediatrics professor John Wyatt, writing in Triple Helix, the magazine of the Christian Medical Fellowship, says estimates of gestational age can be inaccurate, and a number of factors can affect survival.

Doctors have a legal duty to do the best they can for each individual baby.

"These decisions are painful and difficult. But there is no reason for doom and gloom about premature babies. We should celebrate the successes that have been achieved, value the lives of those who have survived against all the odds, whether disabled or not, and look forward to future advances in the care of these vulnerable citizens."

Women and the need for truth

The Right to Know Campaign has produced a report saying that abortion providers are not appropriate organisations to provide pre-abortion counselling for vulnerable women - and Education for Choice claims women visiting counselling centres provided by faith-based and anti-abortion organisations are met with "scaremongering, emotive language and inaccurate information."

Right to Know points out that in 2010 more than 100,000 NHS-funded abortions were performed by private providers such as Marie Stopes International and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, worth an estimated £60 million.

It says BPAS and MSI are strongly driven by financial motivations, see success in increasing the number of abortions they perform, employ business development experts to promote abortion services, and have business plan objectives and targets to increase the number of abortions they perform.

It says marketing techniques are used to promote abortion to women, and the independence of counselling is compromised by the drive to encourage a decision for abortion.

Right to Know is backing an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill proposed by MPs Nadine Dorries and Frank Field which would guarantee that women considering abortion would have access to independent advice from someone who had no financial interest in the outcome of their decision.

The Guardian recently published an article headed "Pregnancy counselling centres found wanting. Evidence of poor practice and factually incorrect advice discovered following undercover investigation." The article itself contained incorrect information about abortion and has twice had to be amended.

Women posing as women considering abortion had evidently made visits on behalf of Education for Choice - a pro-abortion organisation if ever there was one - to 10 counselling centres operated by organisations like Life and Care confidential. It claimed to have found in most of them poor practice and factually incorrect advice, but appeared to provide little evidence of either.

Education for Choice's website says "Several studies have shown that having an abortion does not lead to psychological problems." For some reason, it does not mention the many studies that do.

It also says "Contrary to belief, there are no links between abortion and breast cancer, and a straightforward abortion will not lead to infertility." The link between abortion and consequent breast cancer is well documented, and abortion can lead to consequent infertility.

Said Lisa Hallgarten, director of Education for Choice: "We strongly urge the Department of Health to think carefully about removing women from the professional decision-making support currently offered by abortion providers, while the current alternative is a network of unregulated individuals, many of whom are in breach of good practice."

Life said: "We are wholeheartedly committed to offering the best service possible to women facing crisis pregnancies by providing them with non-judgmental, person-centred counselling and skilled listening in line with guidelines set out by the BACP [British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy], of which we are a member."

England burns, and people wonder

The banking system has shown itself to be concerned only with what it can get. MPs have fiddled their expenses. The press has been guilty of phone hacking. There has been corruption in the police. If young people had any respect for authority, most of them have lost it.

And as Britain burns, night by night, some people are still wondering what has gone wrong.

Archbishop Cranmer writes: "It is quite moving to read of Sikhs in Southall guarding their gurdwara, and of those three Muslims in Birmingham who died trying to protect their property and community. It is reported that some of those involved in the violence are as young as 10 or 11, and that it is principally being perpetrated by those in their late teens - early 20s. This is the price we pay for moral relativism. Parents and teachers can no longer instruct their children in the difference between right and wrong, and so there is no distinguishing between good and evil. If it feels right and good, do it: the moral course of action is what the individual determines. The truth is what you make it, for there is no universal law of morality; no absolute standard by which all may be judged. And so we must tolerate the beliefs and actions of others even when they impinge upon the rights and liberties of others.

"Our politicians have spent decades dismantling the foundations of our moral order; fracturing and fragmenting the culture that made England cohesive and the United Kingdom coherent. They have created a culture of rootless individualism, for which we are now paying the price."

The cause of the problem, top and bottom, is that we are a nation away from God.

This world runs on laws; natural laws that cause the sun to come up in a morning and go down at night. Laws like the law of gravity. They're called laws because they work every time. If you jump off a high building, you won't break the law of gravity; the law of gravity will break you.

There are spiritual laws which are just as unbreakable. Here's one: as a man sows, so shall he reap (Gal 6:7). This nation is reaping what it has sown. But it has not yet gone so far that it cannot come back.

Christian organisations are pleading this week for Christians throughout the nation to pray. Says the Maranatha Community, in its appeal for prayer: "The current riots across the land hold up a mirror to the moral and spiritual sickness of our nation. The issues facing us today are not primarily political or social but spiritual. This is yet another manifestation of the consequences of our nation turning its back on God and His ways. . .

"We believe that God, in His mercy, is shining the light of His Truth on to the ugly wound of our nation which is in need of cleansing and healing."

The opportunity to pray, Maranatha says, is a God-given opportunity to bring hope to our nation. It is.

When mourning will be turned to joy

Next Tuesday, Jerusalem will come to a standstill. There will be no public transport. Shops will be closed. People will gather at the Western Wall to pray and to mourn. Next Tuesday is Tisha b'Av.

Tisha b'Av - the ninth of the Jewish month of Av - has been a remarkable day in Jewish history. (The Jewish calendar does not coincide with the Gregorian calendar, so Tisha b'Av falls on a different date on the civil calendar each year.)

On Tisha b'Av, according to Jewish tradition, the Israelites were forbidden to enter the Promised Land for a further 40 years after the 12 spies came back with a bad report.

On Tisha b'Av in 586 BC Solomon's Temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian exile began.

On Tisha b'Av in AD 70 the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans.

On Tisha b'Av in AD 135, the Bar Kokhba revolt ended when Betar, the last Jewish stronghold, was taken by the Romans.

On Tisha b'Av in AD 136, the Temple area was ploughed under by the Romans as Hadrian rebuilt Jerusalem as a pagan city.

On Tisha b'Av in AD 1290, the Jews were expelled from England.

On Tisha b'Av in AD 1492 the Jews were expelled from Spain.

And Tisha b'Av in 1942 marked a mass deportation of Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto, and the first killings at Treblinka extermination camp.

But Zech 8:19 prophesies a day when Tisha b'Av will be a day of rejoicing:

Thus says the Lord of hosts:
'The fast of the fourth month,
The fast of the fifth,
The fast of the seventh,
And the fast of the tenth,
Shall be joy and gladness and cheerful feasts
For the house of Judah.
Therefore love truth and peace.'

The whole chapter is about how the Jews will be gloriously restored in the Messianic age. Read it and marvel.

Something new inside

When a man finds Christ and believes, something happens inside. He still has the same name. He still lives in the same house, wears the same clothes and works at the same job. But he's a new man inside. "If anyone is in Christ," the Bible says, "he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new."

He has the same National Insurance number and gets the same bills. He still loves his wife and children (more than he did before). He still enjoys life (more than he did before). He knows he belongs in this world, but somehow he feels he doesn't belong to it.

If you take a fish out of water, it will die, because it's out of its natural environment. If you put a man underwater, he will die, because he's out of his natural environment. A diver can exist underwater, but that's because he has an airline to the surface.

A man (or a woman, or child) who finds Christ can live in this world, and live a successful life: but that's because he can breathe the air of heaven. If he doesn't feel completely at home, that's because he's the citizen of another country.

When I was young, I had to do National Service. The young man in the bed next to me was a Christian.

In the evening, I would go out to the pub. When I got back, he would be tucked up in bed already. Having had a few beers, I would sit on the end of his bed and persuade him to sing The Old Rugged Cross. I didn't understand too much about it, but there was something about that old song that I liked.

After we were both demobbed, I was on holiday one year near his home town, so I looked him up. He invited me to his home the following Sunday.

He and his young wife had a simple home, but there was something different about it. They said grace before meals. Somehow that spoke to my heart.

A few years later, in a different place, in different circumstances, I was converted to Christ. I wrote and told the young man. He was pleased.

A lot later, I found out that when he was 29 years old, he died from a massive brain haemorrhage, leaving behind a wife and young daughter, which was sad. But he didn't just die. He went home.

As you get older, one by one friends and family disappear. Some of them go to heaven.

One day there's going to be a tremendous reunion. I'm looking forward to that. It really is going to be something.

Inquiry into sharia courts scrapped

A UK Ministry of Justice inquiry into the operation of Islamic sharia courts in Britain has been scrapped - because the Muslim courts refused to co-operate.

There are an estimated 85 sharia courts in Britain. The exact number is unknown. There is no objection to their providing mediation on religious matters, but there are concerns that they should not provide an alternative to British law.

Before last year's General Election the Ministry of Justice commissioned "an exploratory study of sharia councils in England with respect to family law." The Daily Mail reports that ministers have now abandoned the inquiry because the Muslim courts refused to help.

Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said the study "identified a number of challenges to undertaking robust research in this area. The study was therefore limited and adds little to the evidence base.

"The findings cannot be regarded as a representative assessment of the operation of sharia councils. Following expert peer review of the draft report, the Ministry of Justice decided not to publish the findings."

The Ministry of Justice said "The challenges to undertaking more robust research were that the councils are generally run on a volunteer basis, were short staffed and very busy, so there were practical difficulties in speaking with respondents.

"There was also reluctance to discuss the private work of the councils and respondents were wary of the stereotypical ways in which their organisations were represented in the media."

Jihad Watch writes: "Baroness Cox. . . noted the practice of rating a woman's testimony as half that of a man (from Qur'an 2:282, confirmed in Sahih Bukhari 1.6.301), and the gradual, unauthorised expansion of jurisdiction that saw Sharia courts ruling on 'family and criminal cases, including child custody and domestic violence.'

"To fail to follow through in this case is to concede that there are areas of Britain where British law is no longer supreme. And it will invite more stonewalling, more jurisdictional 'creeping,' and of course, more sharia courts doing all of the above, unless authorities throw down the gauntlet: If you cannot be investigated to authorities' satisfaction, you cannot operate.

"Most communities demand that much of their restaurants in some form - no inspection, no permit. That is also the least that should be expected of anything styling itself as a court, tribunal, arbitration board, and so forth."

Notices proclaiming "You are entering a Shariah controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced" have been posted on bus stops and street lamps in the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Newham, and a group of Islamists marched on Saturday from Leyton to Walthamstow calling for democracy to be replaced by sharia. This is considered to be the work of an extremist minority - but a poll of Muslim families showed that 40 per cent supported the introduction of sharia in Britain.

Baroness Cox has introduced a bill in the House of Lords which would make it a criminal offence for anyone to take over the rights of the state's criminal or family courts. What progress the bill will make remains to be seen.

'All I knew was that I wanted to live'

The family of a woman in her early fifties is currently pleading with the High Court for permission for her to be "allowed to die" - in fact, starved and dehydrated to death. The woman is brain damaged, paralysed, unable to communicate and totally dependent on nursing care. Her family believes it cruel to keep her alive.

UK courts have granted permission for food and water to be withdrawn from more than 40 patients in "persistent vegetative state," with fatal results, since the case of Tony Bland in the early 1990s - but this is the first time a UK court has been asked to give permission for food and water to be withdrawn from someone who is said to be "minimally conscious."

Nikki Kenward, who lives at Aston on Clun, Shropshire, and represents a campaign group named Distant Voices, is concerned. And she is qualified to express an opinion: hit by Guillain Barre syndrome in the 1990s, she was completely paralysed apart from her right eyelid. She was "locked in" for five months, unable to communicate and in terrible pain throughout her body.

It took years for her to fight back from total paralysis, and she still needs a wheelchair, not having recovered the use of her legs.

"I have lived that life, and I know how precious it is," she wrote in a national newspaper this week. "I will be grateful until my dying day that no one had the right to 'turn' me off.

"You might think that, if you were in my position, you'd have wished for death. Perhaps you have even spoken to your loved ones about your wishes, should you ever find yourself in such a situation. But all I knew in those dark days was that I wanted to live.

"I didn't care if this was all my life would ever be - forever lonely, frustrated and silent. I wanted to be here, living in whatever capacity I could manage, and I believe there are people lying in intensive care wards all over the country who feel exactly the same.

"I believe that every life that ends at Dignitas, and every dependent patient who is 'allowed to die' by starvation, erodes my right to live. It normalises this kind of death, and it sanitises what is an abhorrent practice.

"Death through the withdrawal of food and water. . . is, according to a doctor friend, about as painful and unpleasant an end as one can imagine.

"It is possible that many of those who have died this way have suffered extreme anxiety, burning sensations all over their bodies, and searing pain in their kidneys that even the strongest medication can do nothing to ease. And yet, this is the death that more and more believe is the 'dignified' way to go."

This week Nikki Kenward and fellow disability campaigners, out of concern, they say, for some 6,000 mentally incapacitated patients in the British health care system - and to draw attention to increasing pressure to allow the killing of incapacitated patients - staged the mock execution of a wheelchair user outside Parliament.

The Royal College of Physicians is undertaking a review of the care of mentally incapacitated patients. Professor Lynne Turner-Stokes, one of those involved in the review, is quoted as saying that "We need to take a deep breath and consider whether doctors are striving to keep people alive in inappropriate circumstances."

Nikki Kenward has been criticised for her performance outside Parliament this week. But does someone need to speak up for those who have no voice?

A colossal loss of human life

More than 30 human embryos are created for every one baby born by IVF, according to Government figures.

The figures show that 3,144,386 human embryos have been created in British laboratories since the 1991 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. Of these, 1,455,832 have been thrown away ("discarded" I think is the official term), 101,605 have been given for research in destructive experiments and 764,311 have been frozen for future use.

The remainder - 822,638 - have been planted in the womb, but since the success rate with IVF is small, only 94,090 live births have resulted.

The figures were given by Health Minister Lord Howe in a written answer to a question by Lord Alton.

Lord Alton said he found the figures "staggering."

"We are creating and destroying human embryos on an industrial scale," he said. "I think the real work that should be going on in fertility treatment is to fund the development of implantation techniques which don't require the destruction of human embryos."

While we are on the subject of the loss of human life, Planned Parenthood, a giant abortion provider in the US, performed 332,278 abortions in 2009, compared with 997 adoption referrals - 333 abortions for every adoption referral.

By comparison, there were something like 203,000 abortions on UK residents in 2009, with only 91 adoptions of babies under a year old - 2,235 abortions for every baby adopted.

Meet Patches, the singing dog

Just to point out that the world isn't all bad news.

Eddie Vassallo, an elderly Italian immigrant to Australia, used to spend hours with his dog Patches sitting on his knee.

Patches had a favourite song: Happy Birthday. When Eddie sang it, Patches would join in. When they finished, Eddie would say "Bravo, bravo, Patches."

"Patches just loved it," said Eddie's daughter Marie. "When it was anyone's birthday, Dad would telephone them and he would sing Happy Birthday to them with Patches singing along. It became a family tradition for Dad and Patches to sing it together."

Three months ago, Eddie died, and in the confusion, Patches disappeared. Marie was upset at the dog's loss - but she lived miles away in Sydney.

Kaye Grivec, a dog foster carer, agreed to look for Patches. She found him at a dog pound, due to be put down because no one could prove he belonged to someone.

Kaye was asked if she could prove he belonged to someone. "Only one way to find out," she said. She started to sing Happy Birthday.

"At first, he had a sad, faraway look in his eyes," she told the Melbourne Herald Sun, "just like he was thinking about someone or missing someone. Then he just put his head back and started howling along with me, and I just burst into tears of joy."

Marie is arranging for Patches to be sent to Sydney to spend the rest of his days with her family.

You can see a video of Patches singing Happy Birthday by clicking here.

The cost of believing

The cost of converting to Christ for a Muslim, particularly in a Muslim country, is often a high one.

This month's edition of Open Doors magazine tells of 27-year-old Amouna Ahamdi, who lives in Sudan. When her brother found she had converted to Christ, he stabbed her three times in the stomach and broke her leg.

The local hospital was reluctant to treat her because of her conversion. She was discharged when she was partially recovered. At home, her torment continued.

Her father shackled her to a chair, locked her in a room, and beat her for a month. "They shaved all my hair and my father whipped my head," said Amouna.

Eventually she escaped, and married another convert her own age. Because of problems from the knife attack, she went to Khartoum for treatment.

After other relatives found out about their conversion, masked men burst into the house where they were staying and attempted to kill her husband. She was stabbed in the hand trying to protect him.

They had no money to pay for medicine and often went hungry.

"We cannot deny Christ," she said. "This is a big challenge for us, because we do not have a place to go. We have no food, and we are jobless. I am still in pain, besides having a two-month-old baby boy to care for."

Converting to Christ for the Muslim doesn't just mean going to church on a Sunday.

'I'll be so proud'

Andy and Heather Skinner, from Darwen in Lancashire, were told that their unborn baby girl had a massive tumour covering the left chamber of her heart that was restricting blood flow. Specialists were convinced she would die in the womb and advised an abortion.

"I didn't want an abortion," said Heather. "I wanted nature to take its course. The thought of losing my baby was awful. I didn't know how to deal with it. We were left in a room and just cried."

Charley-Marie was born by caesarean section. Three days later, the couple were allowed to take her home. All they had bought for the baby were the clothes and a blanket to bury her in.

Charley-Marie is now 19 months old. She still has the tumour. Sometimes she gets out of breath, but otherwise she is like any other youngster.

"She loves Peppa Pig," says her mother, "and always has a cheeky smile on her face."

Says Peter Saunders, whose blog I can recommend: "I have lost count of the number of times I have heard stories like this. Why is it that the medical profession responds in this knee-jerk fashion recommending abortion for disabilities we would make every effort to treat or correct in a baby after birth?

"Why are not more parents given the opportunity, with proper support, to see their babies' births through? Why is it that offering surgery, other treatment, or if relevant, terminal care, to disabled, sick or dying babies seems no longer to be regarded as a serious option?

"Why has our society instead reached the conclusion that these most vulnerable members of the human race, because they are disabled, sick or dying, have lives that are somehow not worth living? That they are, in other words, better off dead?"

What do you think?

I have another question. What if the parents refuse an abortion and the child dies anyway?

Karen Palmer tells how ultrasound showed during her pregnancy that her baby had profound abnormalities and was not expected to live. She went ahead with the pregnancy. When the baby was born, the baby was peaceful and comfortable. She died just five hours after birth.

Karen and her husband evidently learned a great deal.

"What did we learn? We learned that God is intimately involved with us and with a tiny baby. We learned that even such a tiny, damaged life is precious to him. We learned better how to care for each other and our parents and friends. Our church learned how to care for us. We saw that terminating a pregnancy where there is an abnormality denies the parents and wider family the opportunity to grieve and remember a real and valuable member of that family. We learned that God answers prayer.

"After Jennifer's death, a steadfast friend said that when Jennifer arrived in heaven there would be great rejoicing and celebration because of all she achieved in her short life. I dream that when I arrive there people will say 'Ah! You're Jennifer's mother' and I'll be so proud!"

MPs to investigate discrimination against Christians

Cases of discrimination against Christians at work and in public have led to concern about the erosion of religious freedom in the UK. Well, things are happening.

A select committee-style inquiry is to be held in Parliament this autumn to clarify how legislation on hate crime and equality affects Christians. Peers and MPs will be invited to consider whether changes to the law are needed.

The inquiry, which will be held in public and will take about three months, is the idea of MP Gary Streeter, who chairs Christians in Parliament. He said that while there was religious freedom in Britain, some groups were "whipping up an alternative view and generating fear" where there didn't need to be any.

"The outcome of our inquiry might be that the law needs to be nudged back in certain areas, and we won't shy away from saying so."

What's more, the Equality and Human Rights Commission appears to have done a U-turn. It says judges have interpreted equality laws too narrowly and should not have backed employers who pursued Christians for wearing crosses or refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples.

The way human rights and equality law had been interpreted was insufficient to protect freedom of religion or belief, it said. Christians who disagreed with homosexual equality rules should have the freedom to follow their conscience.

"The idea of making reasonable adjustments to accommodate a person's needs has served disability discrimination law well for decades," said EHRC legal director John Wadham. "It seems reasonable that a similar concept could be adopted to allow someone to manifest their religious beliefs."

The EHRC is to intervene - to call for more leeway for Christians to express their beliefs and live according to their consciences - in four human rights cases to come before the European Court of Human Rights. They are the cases of Lilian Ladele, a registrar removed from her job because she was not willing to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies; Gary McFarlane, a Relate counsellor who declined to give sex therapy to homosexual couples; Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who refused to stop wearing her crucifix; and Nadia Eweida, the BA check-in assistant who was told she could not wear a cross with her uniform.

As perhaps might have been expected, homosexuals and humanists have protested at the EHRC's decision. Ben Summerskill, of the homosexual activist group Stonewall, said he was "deeply disturbed" by the move. The British Humanist Association said the commission's intervention in these cases was "wholly disproportionate."

The battle for Christians' rights, however, is not yet won. Barnabas Fund reports that a Christian teacher in the UK has been ordered by her school not to talk about religion after answering a child's question.

The teacher was asked by a girl in her class whether the Christian God and the god of Islam were the same. When she said they were not, she was asked to explain how they were different. Following the discussion, the school department received a complaint from the Muslim parents of the girl.

"[The department] handled the situation well and stated that the child had asked the question and I had answered truthfully without giving or intending any offence," the teacher recalled.

But she has been told if children ask a question about any religious matter she must ignore the question or change the subject immediately.

Said the teacher: "I pointed out that Christianity was my life, not my religion. It was a living relationship with my Lord. I live it daily. I now feel I am being watched. I have always shared my faith with the children I teach whenever they ask me a question about my life, why I pray and do what I do."

A letter to Leyi

After years of missionary endeavour, there were something like a million Christian believers in China when the Communists took over in 1949.

Foreign missionaries were expelled. The Communist government allowed some churches to remain open, but only under the control of the state. The state controlled church appointments; preaching was monitored; evangelism, Sunday school and the baptism of minors were forbidden.

Those who disagreed with such intrusion formed illegal unregistered house churches. Members of such churches were arrested, beaten, tortured and imprisoned.

Despite the persecution - or perhaps because of the persecution - such churches grew. Christians in China are now estimated at between 55 and 130 million. It is said that 10,000 Chinese are converted to Christ every week. Some say that that number are converted every day. (It should be borne in mind that the population of China is in excess of one-and-a-quarter billion.)

In recent years has come something new. In addition to the state-controlled churches and the unregistered house churches - the latter mostly in the country - have appeared churches of educated professionals - doctors, lawyers and government officials - who have come to faith in Christ in the cities. One such, Shouwang Church in Beijing, has been in the news in recent weeks.

Because its 1,000-strong congregation was too large to meet together in homes, the church met in rented premises for Sunday worship. Time and again it had to leave its rented premises because of pressure on the landlord by the authorities.

The church paid the equivalent of four million American dollars for its own premises in a Beijing office building. After the money was handed over, the landlord refused to hand over the key because of such pressure.

The church decided to hold its Sunday worship in public in the open air, leading to arrests and detentions each week. Police prevent members leaving their homes to get to the meetings. The entire church leadership has been under house arrest for three months. Still those who can manage to get there continue to meet.

One member of the congregation has suffered not only from police harassment. Recently his daughter, aged almost two, fell to her death from the upstairs window of the family's apartment. Perhaps to deal with his grief, he began to write letters to the dead girl.

One of them, A letter to Leyi (no. 11), has been translated into English and published on China Aid's website. It gives a remarkable insight into the harassment he suffers and his grief at the loss of his child. You can read it by clicking here. It may just touch your heart.

So will the Government have the courage?

Joanna Jepson, a theological student who later became a Church of England curate, kicked up a fuss a few years ago because a baby was aborted at 28 weeks because of a suspected cleft palate - a condition that can easily be corrected by surgery.

Abortion can be obtained virtually on demand up to 24 weeks - usually because doctors are willing to certify that there is "risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the mother" - but abortions above 24 weeks are legal only - apart from when the mother's life is in danger, which practically never happens - if there is "substantial risk that the baby would be seriously handicapped."

As a result of the fuss, the Department of Health refused thereafter to publish medical grounds on which abortions over 24 weeks were carried out, claiming by way of excuse that small numbers could lead to the people involved being identified.

After a six-year legal battle by the ProLife Alliance, the High Court this year ordered the Department of Health to publish the data by July 4. This week the Department of Health published the information on its website - on July 4, you will notice, and not a day earlier.

The figures do not make pretty reading. Between 2002 and 2010, 1,189 England and Wales residents aborted their babies after 24 weeks; some because of such problems as spina bifida; some because of things like cleft lips or cleft palates; many because of minor deformities which could be corrected by surgery. Between 2002 and 2010 a total of almost 4,000 babies were aborted because of suspected Down's syndrome, 10 of them at over 24 weeks.

So now you know: cleft palates and Down's syndrome are "serious handicaps."

Martin Narey, the UK Government's new adoption czar, has suggested that women with unwanted pregnancies should be offered adoption as an alternative to abortion.

As abortions have risen steadily from 1968 to the present, a Government adoption figures website shows that adoptions in England and Wales have fallen, from 22,502 in 1974 to 4,725 in 2009. Women with unwanted pregnancies would rather kill their unborn baby than hand their baby over for adoption to a couple desperate for a baby to care for.

I remember a young woman I spoke to who had been to an abortion clinic to arrange to kill her unborn baby. I suggested adoption to her as an alternative. "Oh, I couldn't possibly do that," she said. What a selfish society we live in.

"Narey is definitely on to something," writes Peter Saunders. "But will the government have the courage to do anything about it? It will be interesting to see the response."

Turned out it was true after all

Bob Williamson killed his pet rabbit when he was five. His parents took him to church, but the church was full of hypocrisy, so he didn't go any more.

At 15, he was an alcoholic. At 17, he was a drug addict. When he was 18, he was diagnosed as an incurable sociopath, without a conscience.

He practised witchcraft.

In hospital after a road accident which nearly killed him, he became friendly with a nurse, who gave him her own copy of the Bible. He read about Jesus, who he found was nothing like he had thought. He continued to read until he came to Phil 4:13: "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

When he read that he slammed the book shut and called for the nurse.

"Your Bible is nothing but a lie," he told her. "I am a hardcore drug addict and less than two per cent of whoever puts a needle in their arm ever gets out of that alive. I had all kinds of friends die. I've seen people commit suicide, including my brother."

The nurse put her hands on her hips and told him: "Jesus is God and He can do anything He wants to do, and He can change your sorry tale."

Well, the nurse won the argument. Williamson never touched drugs or alcohol again and became a multimillion-dollar businessman.

Read the story in the Christian Post for yourself. It will do you good. You can do it right now by clicking here.

The problems with organ donation

The British Medical Association decided last week to continue to support the idea of presumed consent for organ donation - so it would be possible to take organs for transplantation from anyone who had not "opted out" of the system provided their families did not object. At present, organs are taken from people who have "opted in" by volunteering to join the Organ Donor Register.

The Welsh Assembly is to consider legalising a presumed consent system for people in Wales.

Whenever I am asked to volunteer to become an organ donor, my reply is a definite No. I do not object to people donating their organs for use after their deaths if they wish to do so, but I am not willing to become an organ donor for two good reasons.

Up to the 1960s, the only criteria for diagnosing death were that breathing and heartbeat had irreversibly ceased.

In 1976, after ventilation had been developed to provide ongoing life support for brain-damaged patients, the conference of British Medical Royal Colleges decided that if a patient tested positive for death of the brain stem, then if life support were removed, the patient would be expected to die.

In 1979, when organs were beginning to be required for organ transplantation, the conference issued a statement saying that a patient who tested positive for death of the brain stem was dead already. Prognosis had become diagnosis.

A patient who tests positive for what has come to be known as brain-stem death will be breathing. His or her heart will be beating. Her body will be its normal colour, and warm. She can digest food, and given liquids, will urinate. If she is not turned regularly, she will develop bedsores. If she is young, she will come to sexual maturity. If she is pregnant, she can bring a baby to the point of birth. But the majority of doctors will say that she is already dead, and her organs can be taken for transplant.

(A leaflet for prospective organ donors published by the Department of Health says "Will I really be dead when they remove my organs? Yes.")

I do not believe that brain-stem death is in fact death. That is the first reason why I will not be an organ donor.

The second is this. Prospective organ donors and their next of kin are never told that the patient will still be breathing and his or her heart still beating when the organs are removed. (The only organs used for heart, liver and pancreas transplants are organs taken from patients whose hearts are still beating.)

Prospective donors and next of kin are led to believe that life support will be switched off and then the organs removed. This is not what happens. Any organs required will be removed, sometimes without anaesthetic, and then life support will be switched off.

For donors and next of kin not to be told that the patient will be breathing and the patient's heart still beating when the organs are removed is unethical and immoral.

Discovering the depth of love

I commented two weeks ago on Terry Pratchett's appalling programme on assisted suicide on BBC TV. I'm sorry that I only just got round to reading the Rev Michael Wenham's comment on the programme in the Guardian's Comment is free.

Michael lives in Oxfordshire. He has motor neurone disease. You might think he would be a candidate for assisted suicide. But no. He doesn't want to die; he wants to live. ("Why is the universe so beautiful?" he says on his blog.) His comments on the programme are worth reading.

When he wrote them, he'd just had a visit from old friends Jill and her husband Dan. Jill, a keen horsewoman, was left a paraplegic after a motor cycle accident 52 years ago. Dan was given six months to live because of leukaemia more than 20 years ago and is still here. Both are living a full life and full of fun.

"They actually enrich you in knowing them. I expect that they would say that, having determined to live, their experiences have enriched them. It might have been so different."

And the programme? Pratchett's comment about one of the men who opted for suicide - "I've been in the presence of the bravest man I've ever met" - "left a bitter taste in my mouth," says Michael, "as if we'd been served a cocktail of death disguised as an elixir of life."

The candidates for suicide on the programme might have wanted to spare their families the pain of caring for them, but that didn't seem to be their motive.

"The repeated refrain. . . was 'It's my choice,' 'It's his choice'. . . My individual choice is sovereign. I want my kingdom. And the rest doesn't matter. The individual is the ace, trumping all else.

"Well, that's a pretty impoverished world. In fact, interdependence is the secret of society. We are dependent on each other, and that's something for celebrating, not fearing, for embracing, not avoiding. Perhaps the city is an image of heaven because community is the heart of human existence. The best thing in life is to experience the extraordinary depth with which one can be loved. It's to discover the utter disinteredness of those who love you, to find out when you can give nothing back, literally nothing but distasteful work and pain, they still want to look after you; they still care for you; yes, they still love you.

"The tragedy of Peter Smedley and Andrew Colgan [the men in the programme who chose assisted suicide], it seems to me, is that they didn't trust themselves to the journey their loved ones wanted to travel with them - because if they had, the road might well have been rough, but they would have discovered, hand in hand with them, beauties of the human spirit few of us ever glimpse."

Read the whole thing. To see it, click here.

A very remarkable lady

Caroline Cox - Baroness Cox of Queensbury, to give her her full title - is, by any account, a remarkable woman.

A humanitarian activist, she is founder and chief executive of HART (Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust), which helps oppressed people neglected by other organisations and ignored by the international media. She is president of Christian Solidarity UK, as well as supporter of countless other organisations.

She has entered war zones under fire. She has travelled secretly to countries where foreigners and aid organisations were not permitted. She has spoken up for persecuted Christians in Burma, Indonesia, Nigeria and Sudan. As a result of her work, she has received honorary doctorates from universities on several continents.

She has taken medical supplies to Communist Poland, Romania and the Soviet Union. She has made something like 60 journeys to Armenia with medical supplies, many of them in violent times when young men were being beheaded and little girls cut in half and left hanging on trees.

Despite being sentenced in absentia by the National Islamic Front for illegally entering Sudan, where more than two million people were displaced and an estimated 400,000 killed, she continued to make trips there.

On one visit, Islamists had passed through days before, killing unarmed men and enslaving women and children. Bodies were everywhere. She met a Christian whose farm had been destroyed, his church attacked, his brother and his brother-in-law killed and his sister captured as a slave.

"We feel completely on our own," he said. "You are the only Christians who have even visited us for years. Doesn't the church want us any more?"

"I sat under a tree," said Baroness Cox, "and wept."

Baroness Cox has now introduced a bill in the House of Lords which would allay fears that the estimated 85 sharia courts set up by Muslims in the UK are beginning to adjudicate in matters of criminal and family law. She has no desire, she says, to interfere with internal religious issues or prevent arbitration for people who want it. But the bill would make it a criminal offence to pretend to be able to adjudicate in criminal or family matters or to discriminate against women.

The Islamic Sharia Council has published a statement suggesting that Baroness Cox doesn't know what she's talking about.

Her bill will have its second reading in the Lords before very long. It is unlikely to become law. I would think that for it to do so it would need the support of some very principled politicians.

Whether Baroness Cox's bill reaches the statute book or not, I wish her well.

A new 'sanctity of life' challenge

It began with Tony Bland, who suffered brain damage in the 1989 Hillsborough football disaster. He was diagnosed as being in what has come to be known as persistent vegetative state.

Doctors said he was unaware, but not in pain. He was not dying. He was not on life support. Cared for, he could have lived for 30 years. But in 1993 the law lords decided - though not in a unanimous decision, you may remember - that doctors could withhold food and water from him, thus causing him to die.

It was the first time in history English courts sanctioned causing the death of an innocent man who was not already dying.

Since then, it has been possible to apply to the courts for permission to withdraw food and water from patients in so-called persistent vegetative state, and numbers of patients have died in this way.

I am opposed to nutrition and hydration being withdrawn in these circumstances. I do not believe it is possible to prove total lack of awareness. I do not know how it can be said there is no possibility of improvement (some patients diagnosed as being in persistent vegetative state have recovered). And whatever you think of those two points, we are still taking innocent human life.

Now there has come another sinister development. A mother is applying to the courts for permission to withdraw nutrition and hydration from a patient said to be minimally conscious. The case comes before a court in the next few weeks.

If permission to withdraw food and water is granted here, we will have crossed another rubicon; taken another important step down the slippery slope.

109 years old - with a new nose

Human life is precious.

Human life deserves care and respect, whether the person is newly conceived, nine or 90. Because this is a particular concern of mine, this blog carries stories about things like assisted suicide, which can be depressing. So here's a story to try to restore the balance.

Meir Korner lives in Haifa, in northern Israel. There's one thing you should know about him before we go any farther. He was born in December 1901. That makes him 109 years old.

He still has good health, a clear mind and a great sense of humour. His recipe for old age, he says, is simple: do what makes you happy.

His daily routine includes sleeping well, reading, resting, regular talks with the Almighty and going to the beach. For 60 years he didn't miss his walk on the shore, where he meets friends and enjoys the sunshine.

A few months ago, Meir discovered what turned out to be a tumour on his nose. Eventually it covered some 50 per cent of his nose. A few weeks ago, he had an operation to remove the tumour and reconstruct his nose, using a flap of skin from his forehead (forehead flap rhinoplasty, for the professionals among my readership).

Meir's nose healed in a very short space of time, IsraelNationalNews.com reports. "We are extremely satisfied with the results," said Yitzchak Ramon, the doctor who operated. "Nose reconstruction is a real challenge, yet just days after the operation, it looked like nothing happened."

Meir waits to return to the beach. "The doctors say this happened because of the sun, but I don't think I have to stop going to the beach," he said.

"I look and feel good because of the doctors and because I do what I love. The Almighty promised me many years on this earth, and the moment I can, I will return to the sea - with sunscreen."

So where are we going here?

President Obama is being described as the most anti-Israel president in US history.

Hamas has been listed by the US as a terrorist organisation. It refuses to accept Israel's right to exist and is sworn to Israel's destruction.

Just a month ago, President Obama said Israel could not be expected to negotiate with Hamas until Hamas gave up its goal to destroy Israel. He told the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee: "We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace, including recognising Israel's right to exist and rejecting violence and adhering to all existing agreements."

Despite the fact that Hamas has not changed its position, Obama now says that Israel must start peace negotiations with Hamas, now a partner with Fatah in Palestinian government, based on Israel's pre-1967 borders. This, it is suggested, would prevent the Palestinians' unilaterial declaration of a Palestinian state in September - a move which the US could prevent anyway if it had a mind.

Israel says it will not negotiate with Hamas so long as Hamas refuses to accept Israel's right to exist.

Iran, whose fanatical leadership has promised to wipe Israel off the map, has stockpiles of enriched uranium and is now said to be able to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb in about two months.

Hezbollah and Hamas are still backed by Iran. In Egypt, the radical Muslim Brotherhood is consolidating its position ahead of elections in September. The hand of al Qaeda is becoming increasingly evident in countries like Yemen. Muslims are talking about a Muslim caliphate with the former land of Israel at its centre.

When we talk about Israel, we are dealing not only with a geopolitical issue, but with an intensely theological and spiritual issue. The Bible speaks a great deal about Israel's history, Israel's present and Israel's future. There is not room here to quote large portions of the Bible, but consider, for instance, Ezek 28:25, 26:

"'Thus says the Lord God: "When I have gathered the house of Israel from the peoples among whom they are scattered, and am hallowed in them in the sight of the Gentiles, then they will dwell in their own land which I gave to my servant Jacob.

"'And they will dwell safely there, build houses, and plant vineyards; yes, they will dwell securely, when I execute judgments on all those around them who despise them. Then they shall know that I am the Lord their God."'"

And Amos 9:14, 15:

"'I will bring back the captives of my people Israel;
They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them;
They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them.

"I will plant them in their land,
And no longer shall they be pulled up
From the land I have given them,'
Says the Lord your God."

It's your choice

When I saw the film version of C. S. Lewis' classic tale The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe I was interested, but not tremendously impressed. Perhaps I had heard so much about it, actually seeing it was something of an anti-climax. On the other hand, when I heard the dramatised version of the story on the radio, I was almost in tears.

Why the difference? Perhaps because radio offers better opportunity for the imagination to function. A powerful thing, the imagination.

Someone said that the Bible doesn't tell us everything about heaven, but enough to allow us to imagine it. And look forward to it.

When God has finished what's He's doing down here, He's going to create a new heaven and a new earth. The new heaven isn't going to be up there; it's going to be down here. God Himself is going to come down to dwell among His people.

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God'" (Rev 21:1 - 3).

Words can't describe what a wonderful place it will be. There will be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor pain. We will have fellowship there with some wonderful people, and with God Himself.

It's amazing how people imagine that everyone is going to heaven (except Hitler perhaps, and Saddam Hussein). Jesus said only a few people are going there.

And it's surprising how people believe we can get to heaven by being good. Or if the good we do outweighs the evil we do. Or if we belong to this church, or that church or the other church. Heaven is perfect; there'll be no sin in heaven. And we're all sinners, which is why we all need a Saviour. God's Son, born into human flesh, lived a perfect life and died in my place, so that He could take away my sin and give me His righteousness. He's the Saviour of the world.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

The reason so many people don't go to heaven is not because they aren't invited, but because they fail to take advantage of God's offer of forgiveness and a new life in Christ.

God's done everything He can to make it possible. The choice now is yours.

An appalling example of propaganda

In a one-hour TV programme called Choosing to Die, the BBC last night showed a British man taking his own life at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland.

The programme was presented by Sir Terry Pratchett, a patron of Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) and a campaigner for the legalisation of assisted suicide in the UK. It was totally biased: little more than propaganda for the campaign. It is likely to encourage others to commit suicide. The decision to show the programme was appalling.

Dr Peter Saunders, of Care Not Killing, wrote on his blog last week:

By putting their extensive public resources behind this campaign and by giving Terry Pratchett, who is both a patron on DID and key funder of the controversial Falconer Commission, a platform to propagate his views, the BBC is actively fuelling this move to impose assisted suicide on this country and runs the risk of pushing vulnerable people over the edge into taking their lives. It is also flouting both its own guidelines on suicide portrayal and impartiality.

The portrayal of suicide by the BBC, along with Pratchett's celebrity endorsement, breaches both international and BBC guidelines on suicide portrayal and risks encouraging further suicides amongst those who are sick, elderly or disabled. It is both a recipe for elder abuse and also a threat to vulnerable people, many of whom already feel under pressure at a time of financial crisis and threatened health cuts to end their lives for fear of being a burden on others. The dangers of portraying suicide on the media (Werther effect, suicide contagion, or copycat suicide) are well recognised in the medical literature.

The BBC's own editorial guidelines on portrayal of suicide are very clear and call for 'great sensitivity': 'Factual reporting and fictional portrayal of suicide, attempted suicide and self-harm have the potential to make such actions appear possible, and even appropriate, to the vulnerable.'

The WHO guidance on the media coverage of suicide is equally unambiguous: 'Don't publish photographs or suicide notes. Don't report specific details of the method used. Don't give simplistic reasons. Don't glorify or sensationalize suicide.'

The latest move by the BBC is a disgraceful use of licence-payers' money and further evidence of a blatant campaigning stance. The corporation has now produced five documentaries or docudramas since 2008 portraying assisted suicide in a positive light.

Where are the balancing programmes showing the benefits of palliative care, promoting investment on social support for vulnerable people or highlighting the great dangers of legalisation which have convinced parliaments in Australia, France, Canada, Scotland and the US to resist any change in the law in the last twelve months alone? One will not it seems, hear any of this from the BBC.

The BBC is in flagrant breach of both its own guidelines on suicide portrayal and also its public duty to remain impartial. This will inevitably lead to further criticism of bias and will only serve to place the lives of more vulnerable people at risk.

In a blog post published yesterday before the programme was shown, Peter Saunders prophesied that there were 20 things that would not be mentioned on the programme. He went on to list the 20 things. He was right on every one.

His full comments can be seen here and here.

A health service in crisis

The National Health Service appears to be in crisis.

Despite billions of pounds having been thrown at it, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley says without urgent reform the NHS faces a £20 billion-a-year black hole in funding and a potential doubling of health spending.

Almost 4,500 patients are said to have been discharged from hospital severely malnourished last year, some having illnesses more commonly seen in famines in Africa.

Dehydration is said to contribute to the death of more than 800 hospital patients each year. A report by the Care Quality Commission said some doctors were having to prescribe drinking water for patients to ensure they were given enough to drink.

One, if not two giant care home companies are said to be facing financial meltdown, with the possibility of the Government having to provide a rescue package to save thousands of care home residents from being made homeless. Meanwhile there are reports of "barbaric" abuse of patients at a privately run care home, and a review of the Care Quality Commission itself following an apparent failure to act.

While all this is going on - and not necessarily in direct connection with the above - the Royal College of General Practitioners has drawn up a charter for the care of patients nearing the end of life.

GPs are to assist such patients to make a written record of their wishes, which will be kept on the NHS database of medical records now being developed. Ambulance staff and emergency doctors will then be able to know, for instance, as well as the GP, whether or not the patient wishes to be resuscitated. The patient's wishes will be binding.

The charter may have been formulated with good intentions, but I have serious questions about its implementation. What if the information is put on the computer database incorrectly? What if it is mixed up with another patient's records?

Patients are already able to sign an advance directive (also known as a living will) stating how they wish to be treated, including whether or not they wish to be resuscitated in a life or death situation. Doctors are obliged to follow such directives.

The whole idea of living wills is flawed. An incapacitated patient who has signed a living will is not able to change his mind. How he feels when illness strikes may be very different from what he said when he was fit and well.

I recently heard of a case where doctors dealing with a life and death situation were told there was a living will and allowed the patient to die. It was later found that what was in the patient's medical records was a blank living will form that had not been filled in.

My position regarding future treatment is clear: I do not wish to be allowed to die with dignity; I want to be allowed to live with dignity until death finally and naturally intervenes. Some people who feel as I do have made living wills saying they do want to be resuscitated. I would be most reluctant to do that. Suppose my instructions were misinterpreted or misunderstood?

A doctor's calling is to save life. Unfortunately, a patient's autonomy has become the be-all and end-all.