According to The New York Times, there are 2500 crisis pregnancy centers in the United States versus 1800 abortion clinics. For those who think that pro-lifers aren’t doing anything to help women with their babies, think again.
October 31, 2013
Leave a Comment
May 30, 2013
Kermit Gosnell just got three life sentences for killing newborn babies in his abortion clinic because the law does not permit infanticide. Most people, even those who support abortion, recognize that infanticide is morally wrong. But some bioethicists disagree, and they are being increasingly vocal about it, advocating for infanticide in prominent scholarly journals.
Recently, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva wrote an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics titled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” This caused a stir in the press, to say the least. In response to the outcry, the Journal of Medical Ethics has dedicated their May 2013 edition to responses, both pro and con, to the article.
Philosopher and ethicist Michael Tooley added his voice to the mix in an article titled “Philosophy, critical thinking and ‘after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’” Tooley says we ought to question our basic beliefs, including the belief that infanticide is murder, and hence morally wrong.
May 28, 2013
In March of this year, China’s health ministry released abortion data. Approximately 13 million abortions are performed in China every year. That’s 1500 every hour, or 25 abortions every second! They estimate that since 1971, ~325 million abortions have been performed. That’s more than the population of the United States. Tragic!
May 17, 2013
Now that cloning is back in the media again, the media is once again demonstrating their ignorance of the science, or blatant attempt to pull the wool over the public’s eyes about what is really being done in the lab. They either:
- Leave out the fact that what is produced is a human embryo (going straight from enucleated egg with the nucleus of an adult cell, directly to stem cells)
- Or they admit that an embryo is created, but claim it’s not a human being
- Or they deny that the embryo is a human clone (redefining human clone to refer to a cloned human who is allowed to be born.
They are leaving out important details, and redefining scientific words to fit their purposes. It’s all rhetoric and propaganda, and obfuscates the science and biology behind it.
For the last time: somatic cell nuclear transfer does not produce embryonic stem cells. It creates a human clone, and that human produces stem cells. To extract the stem cells, the human clone must be killed!
Wesley J. Smith has some nice posts demonstrating how the mainstream media continues to get it wrong:
- Let the Cloning Obfuscation Begin
- Cloning Obfuscation 2
- Human Cloning Obfuscation 3
- Human Cloning Obfuscation 4
May 16, 2013
Researchers at The Oregon Health & Science University have just announced in Cell that they successfully cloned 21 humans, and then killed them to extract their stem cells at the blastocyst stage (although they didn’t describe it as “killing”). This is the first time stem cells have ever been derived from a human clone.
Welcome to the brave new world of cloning.
HT: Wesley J. Smith
May 16, 2013
On Monday, the Vermont House approved a bill to legalize assisted suicide in the state by a vote of 75-65 (the VT Senate passed it previously by a vote of 17-13). The governor supported the bill and will surely sign it, making VT the 4th state in the nation to legalize assisted suicide.
There’s nothing like sending a message to the most vulnerable people among us that we think their lives are of such little value that they can be disposed of at will. Our moral decline continues….
HT: Wesley J. Smith
May 10, 2013
I haven’t been reporting on stem cell research lately, but there has continued to be a flurry of advances in the field. None of them, however, involve embryonic stem cell research. All of them involve adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, or induced pluripotent stem cells (adult cells reprogrammed back to an embryonic state).
The latest advance was announced earlier this month. Scientists extracted stem cells from a two year old girl’s bone marrow and created a new windpipe with it in less than a week. Growing one organ from the cells of another body part is truly astonishing work!
Here are some other recent medical advances in non-embryonic stem cell research that I have not reported on:
February 8, 2013
Russia is experiencing a population problem. Putin has hired Boyz II Men ahead of Valentine’s Day to get the Russians in the mood for baby-making! As Daniel Halper at The Weekly Standard quipped, he should have hired a pro-life organization instead. In Russia, for every 10 babies born 13 more are aborted. That is a staggeringly high abortion rate (for comparison, in the U.S. “only” 2.5 babies are aborted for every 10 babies born). More babies are killed than born!
Russia will never fix its population problem until it fixes its culture of death that devalues unborn human life.
January 29, 2013
Mary Elizabeth Williams recently wrote at Salon that
when we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb? … It seems absurd to suggest that the only thing that makes us fully human is the short ride out of some lady’s vagina. That distinction may apply neatly legally, but philosophically, surely we can do better.
If you are cheering on Ms. Williams as an articulate pro-life apologist, you would be mistaken. She is a card-carrying member in the pro-abortion cause. What makes her rather unique among her peers is that she admits “life begins at conception,” and yet also fully supports a woman’s right to kill that human being because “all life is not equal.”
January 28, 2013
Daniel Williams has written a nice piece on how Roe v. Wade affected the pro-life movement. While many think that Roe gave rise to a substantive pro-life movement, this is not true to history. Williams notes the following facts:
- The pro-life movement witnessed a string of legislative victories to curtail or outlaw abortion in 1971 and 1972. They defeated abortion bills in all 25 states who considered them in 1971. In 1972, voters defeated abortion initiatives in MI and ND by large margins.
- Abortion became legal in CA and CO in 1967.
- In 1970, four states legalized abortion for virtually any reason up to the 20th or 24th week of pregnancy
- There were 586,760 abortions in 1972, the year before Roe was decided. In 1973, the number of legal abortions rose 28% to 750,000. By 1980 the number reached 1.5 million.
- When Roe was decided, 19 states permitted abortion, and 4 of those 19 allowed abortion-on-demand.
- White women used to constitute the majority of those obtaining abortion (75% in 1973), but now poor, minority women constitute the majority (55% in 2008).
- Several courts had recognized the unborn to be persons prior to Roe declaring this to be a wrong reading of the Constitution.
January 16, 2013
Twin brothers were recently euthanized in Belgium. The two unidentified men – who appear to be in their 40s – were born deaf, and have spent their entire lives together. When informed that they were both going blind, they decided to end their lives because they couldn’t bear the thought of not seeing one another again.
Belgium euthanizes 1% of the population every year. What makes this brother-duo unique is that they were not terminally ill, nor were they experiencing any physical suffering. They simply did not want to live with the quality of life they would be forced to live under, so they found a doctor to kill them before that day arrived.
Let this be a sounding alarm. Euthanasia is not yet legal in this country, and only Oregon and Washington allow for physician-assisted suicide. But there continues to be a big push for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, and it is gaining momentum throughout the Western world. Those who push for its legalization always tell the public that the legal option for suicide will only be reserved for the terminally ill who are experiencing agonizing pain at the end of their lives. But that’s just the selling point. Once a society buys into that line, the pro-death community always goes for the upsell. Their ultimate goal is death-on-demand.
November 13, 2012
What would you say if I told you that a politician supported a man’s legal right to physically abuse his wife under any circumstance, but is “a pro-woman hero” because his policies will help undermine the root causes of spousal abuse? You’d say I was nuts, right? Well, this same sort of argument is made all the time when it comes to pro-abortion politicians.
Eric C. Miller seems to have drunk this same Kool-Aid. The title of my post is the title of his article in Religion Dispatches Magazine. The title is as oxymoronic as “Adolph Hitler, Zionism Hero” or “Chick-fil-A, PETA hero.” How does one come to the conclusion that the most pro-abortion president this nation has ever seen is actually a pro-life hero? Birth control.
President Obama’s “Obamacare” will require all health insurance companies to cover contraceptives free of charge. And according to a recent study by researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine, access to free birth control can reduce unintended pregnancies by up to 75%. Miller reasons that since virtually all abortions are due to unintended pregnancies, access to free contraception will lower the number of unintended pregnancies, and thus severely lower the abortion rate.
November 7, 2012
Elections tell you a lot about the worldview of Americans. Last night’s election is no exception. It reveals a lot about our moral views. This election reveals that our nation has become very accepting of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, as well as smoking pot.
Homosexuality and Same-Sex Marriage
Wisconsin elected the first openly gay U.S. Senator. Maine (53% vs. 47%) and Maryland (52% vs. 48%) voted to support the legalization of same-sex marriage. Maryland voters merely confirmed their support of a law allowing same-sex marriage that was recently signed into law by the governor. Maine chimed in on this same issue in 2009 after their legislature passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, and they rejected same-sex marriage with 53% of the vote. Look how quickly public opinion is shifting!
The significance of what happened in Maine and Maryland cannot be underestimated. This is the first time in history that same-sex marriage has been approved by the people of a state as opposed to the courts or legislature.
Washington also had an initiative to legalize same-sex marriage (same-sex marriage was already legal in all but name). Only half of the votes have been counted thus far, but at present 52% have voted in favor of same-sex marriage, and thus it is likely to become legal there as well. If so, nine states will have laws allowing same-sex marriage.
Minnesota tried to change their constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman, but the initiative was defeated 51% to 48%. The measure’s defeat, however, does not mean that same-sex marriage is legal. It’s just not on the books as being illegal.
On the international front, France is now in the process of trying to legalize same-sex marriage there. If it passes, they will become the 12th country in the world where same-sex couples can marry. And yesterday, Spain’s high court upheld a 2005 law that legalized same-sex marriage.
November 1, 2012
This is crazy. A mentally handicapped women is pregnant. While both she and her parents want to give birth the baby and give it up for adoption (6 couples are already waiting to adopt the baby), a judge is considering forcing her to have an abortion and undergo sterilization. Outrageous!
September 6, 2012
In my opinion, abortion is the greatest moral issue of our day. Nothing is more unjust than depriving innocent human beings of their God-given, inalienable right to life simply because we are inconvenienced by them. For that reason, the issue of abortion figures prominently in my political affiliations and the way I vote. While I am not a one-issue voter, and while I do not think it is always wrong to vote for a pro-choice political candidate (there are some political offices for which one’s personal views on abortion are irrelevant on a practical level), I will almost always vote for the pro-life candidate even if I have fundamental disagreements with him on other matters. It’s not that I think economic issues do not matter, or that foreign policy does not matter, but that I think the moral injustice of abortion is much more important than these others.
That is why I was disheartened to read the results of two polls which sought to determine what voters think the most important issues are when choosing the candidates they will give their vote to.
August 30, 2012
While dialoguing with a friend on the topic of abortion, I was asked how I define abortion. After communicating my own definition of abortion, I thought it would be interesting to see how various dictionaries define it. Needless to say, I was amazed at how inaccurate and politically correct the definitions were. Here are a few:
- The removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
- Any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.
Interestingly, there is no mention of the fate of the unborn baby. Instead, the focus is on the “pregnancy” and terminating that pregnancy.
The first six months? How is that relevant to the definition? If a child is killed in utero at seven months, that is also called an abortion.
August 3, 2012
Wesley J. Smith wrote about the most recent statistics available on the number of deaths caused by euthanasia in the Netherlands. The official report as reported in the Lancet notes that only 2.8% of all deaths in the Netherlands were the result of euthanasia. The truth is about a decimal point off, however, and Smith explains why.
First, the report also notes that only 77% of all cases of euthanasia were reported to a review committee. That means 23% of deaths by euthanasia were not reported, raising the total number to 3.5%. But this leaves out the deaths involving terminal sedation, which is nothing more than “slow motion euthanasia.” The practice of terminal sedation involves sedating a person to the point of unconsciousness, and then depriving them of food and water until they die. In 2012 a full 12.3% of people were killed this way! Since approximately 2% of people are so close to death when they receive terminal sedation that they die of their disease before they die of dehydration, we can reduce this number to approximately 10%. That means that nearly 14% of deaths in the Netherlands are caused by doctors actively killing the patients.
It gets worse. The 14% figure is based on the total number of deaths. Given the fact that approximately half of all deaths do not involve end-of-life medical decisions (accidents, heart attacks), the reality is that approximately 28% of all deaths involving end-of-life decision making are the result of intentional killing by the medical community! Of course, the headline “28% of deaths involving end-of-life medical care caused by suicide at the hands of doctors!” doesn’t sound nearly as good as “Only 2.8% of Dutch die by euthanasia.” You’ve got to be careful when it comes to stats. If you’re not careful, they (stats and Dutch doctors) will kill you.
July 18, 2012
Leave a Comment
A former professor of medical ethics and former chairman of the Institute of Medical Ethics in Britain, Raanan Gillon, wrote an editorial in the British Medical Journal lambasting a judicial ruling that gave pre-eminence to the sanctity of life. Gillon argues that given scant medical resources, physicians should be allowed to withdraw treatment from stable, but minimally conscious patients suffering from severe dementia in order to cause their premature death.
Yes, this is a preeminent bioethicist. The field has become overrun with utilitarians who espouse views that are anything but ethical.
July 16, 2012
What makes humans valuable? There are only two options: something inherent within the nature of humans themselves (intrinsic) or something acquired by humans (extrinsic). Things that are valuable in and of themselves for the sake of themselves have intrinsic value (love, friendship, health, happiness, virtue, etc.). Things that are valued for their function – what they do for us or how they allow us to obtain an intrinsic good (money) – have extrinsic value.
When it comes to bioethics, the great divide is between those who think human value is extrinsic (and many would add, subjective) and those who think human value is intrinsic and objective. Put another way, bioethicists are divided between the liberals who think human value is based on doing (extrinsic value) and conservatives who think human value is based on being (intrinsic value). Whereas liberals only value the functional expression of certain human capacities, conservatives value the being who possesses those innate capacities whether they are being expressed or not.
May 25, 2012
Leave a Comment
Adult stem cell research has been booming. There are so many advances that it is hard to keep up. Just recently researchers were able to take adult human skin cells, convert them back to an embryonic state, and then with a string of chemical cocktails convert them into heart cells that were capable of being transplanted into rats. While not yet ready for human trials, this is a major milestone that may one day give real hope to those who have suffered heart attacks.
HT: Wesley J. Smith