| In a recent interview with the NY Times, US Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made this comment in regards to the Roe decision:
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion"
the conservative UK paper the Telegraph feels that her comments suggest that she herself supports using abortion to keep certain "populations" from becoming too numerous.
First Things offers a different view on Ginsburg's remarks suggesting that she wasn't necessarily saying she endorses eugenics, but her comments still seem suggest she has an agenda about abortion and should truly have stayed out of abortion-related cases since she is not necessarily able to look at the facts of the cases impartially with her strong opinion on the issue.
What do you think of her comment? | comments: 2 comments or Leave a comment   |
| Daily Mail: "Stunning new technology allows parents to hold a life-size model of their unborn child"
Includes this quote:
'The technology can be also be used as an emotional tool for parents whose foetus might be deformed or need treatment,' added Hilary French, who heads the School of Architecture and Design Products.
For those who don't know, the Daily Mail is a conservative paper, and generally anti-abortion. So I assume the intended meaning is that the technology could be used to give parents a more palpable sense of the life of their child, rather than taking an "out of sight, out of mind" attitude. | | comments: 2 comments or Leave a comment |
| | Does anyone know of a good article discussing the science behind life beginning at conception? I'd appreciate your opinions. Thanks! | | comments: 2 comments or Leave a comment |
| I like this article because it sums up what's wrong with some of the most common arguments for abortion we've all heard...
Five Bad Ways to Argue About Abortion
by Scott Klusendorf
Pro-life advocates argue that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. In support of this conclusion, pro-lifers cite both scientific and philosophic evidence. Nonetheless, some people ignore the evidence pro-life advocates present and argue for abortion based on self-interest. That is the lazy way out. If we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead. But there are pitfalls. Here are five common mistakes people make arguing for abortion
Mistake #1: Confuse objective claims with subjective ones (or confuse claims about ice cream with claims about truth).
When pro-life advocates say that abortion is morally wrong because it takes the life of a defenseless child, they are making a particular type of claim. Specifically, they are making a moral claim about the rightness or wrongness of abortion.
Many people, however, misconstrue the kind of claim the pro-lifer is making in order to respond to one they like better. Consider the following responses to the statement, Abortion is morally wrong.
• "That's just your view."
On a recent edition of the television show Politically Incorrect, super model Kathy Ireland gave a carefully reasoned scientific and philosophic defense of the pro-life position. The show's host, Bill Maher, shot back with, "Kathy, that's just your view."
What's wrong with this response? Maher was confusing a moral claim with a preference claim. But there is a difference between disliking something (say, for example, a particular flavor of ice cream) and thinking it is morally wrong. Put simply, when pro-life advocates say that abortion is morally wrong, they are not saying they personally dislike abortion or would prefer that people not have one. Rather, they are saying that elective abortion is objectively wrong for everyone, regardless of how one feels about it. This is why the popular bumper sticker "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" misses the point entirely. It confuses the two types of claims. Try this: "Don't like slavery? Don't own one!"
Now it may be the case that pro-life advocates like Kathy Ireland are mistaken about their claim. Perhaps their evidence that abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless child is weak and inconclusive. But instead of proving this with facts and arguments, abortion advocates like Bill Maher ignore the evidence altogether. "Well, that's just your view." This not only relativizes the pro-lifers claim, it is intellectually lazy. It attempts to dismiss evidence rather than refute it.
Imagine if I were to say, "There is a pink elephant in the corner of the room just beneath the window." How should you respond to my claim? Perhaps I'm mistaken (and chances are I would be), but it would do no good to say, "That's just your view." The problem is I was not offering an opinion, I was claiming to be right. To refute me, you must show that my claim is false. The correct response is to say, "Your evidence is lousy. We looked in the corner and there is no elephant."
But again, Maher did not do that. At no point did he challenge her facts and arguments. What he said in effect was "Go away Kathy. You have your views and I have mine." This was very condescending because he did not even entertain the possibility that she had good evidence for her claim. Nor did he acknowledge the type of claim she was making.
To sum up, Maher was confusing a preference claim with a distinctly moral one. Preference claims cannot be evaluated as true or false because they are matters of personal taste. You cannot reasonably argue that vanilla ice cream is objectively better than chocolate.
But moral claims are different. They can be evaluated as true or false based on the evidence. They do not say, This is better tasting, they say, This is right. Kathy Ireland's claim was, Abortion is wrong because it takes the life of a defenseless child, and I think I'm right. Maher's glib response did nothing to refute this.
In fact, one could stop Maher dead in his tracks by saying, Bill, it's just your view that it's just my view.
• "Don't force your morality on me."
A student at a Southern California college said this to me after I made a case for the pro-life position in her sociology class. She was in effect saying, Morality is relative; it's up to me to decide what is right and wrong. We call this moral relativism, the belief that there are no objective standards of right and wrong, only personal preferences. Therefore, we should tolerate other views as being equal to our own.
Relativism, however, is seriously flawed for at least three reasons. First, it is self-refuting. That is to say, it cannot live by its own rules. Second, relativists cannot reasonably say that anything is wrong, including intolerance. Third, it is impossible to live as a relativist.
1) Relativism is self-refuting--it commits intellectual suicide. The student said it was wrong for me to force my views on others, but she could not live with her own rule. Although our dialogue was pleasant, she clearly tried to force her views on me.
( Read more... ) | | comments: 9 comments or Leave a comment |
| Boy or Girl? At-home test may tell you
Posted: 12:32 AM ET
By Danielle Dellorto
CNN
(CNN) — Expecting moms can determine if they’re carrying a boy or a girl as early as 10 weeks after conception, according to an over-the-counter gender prediction test by a Plano, Texas, company.
IntelliGender, the creator of the “Boy or Girl Gender Prediction Test,” say scientists isolated certain hormones that when combined with a “proprietary mix of chemicals” react differently if a women is carrying a boy or a girl.
It claims that within 10 minutes of taking the urine test, a mother will be able to tell her baby’s gender. The specimen will turn green if it’s a boy, and orange if it’s a girl.
IntelliGender would not say what hormones or chemicals it uses it in its test due to a pending patent.
“Most parents have a great degree of curiosity to find out if they’re having a boy or a girl and it can be so excruciating to wait until the 20-week sonogram to find out,” IntelliGender co-founder Rebecca Griffin said. “But the test was never meant to be a diagnostic tool. We don’t claim 100 percent accuracy.”
In fact, the company’s Web site specifically says to not “paint the room pink or blue” until an expectant mom confirms results with her doctor.
“We specifically state to all our consumers that they shouldn’t make any emotional or financial steps until the results are confirmed via sonogram,” the company says.
The gender predictor test boasts a 78 to 80 percent accuracy rate, according to the latest IntelliGender report.
( Read more... ) | | comments: 5 comments or Leave a comment |
| | Time: | 03:05 pm | | Current Mood: | ![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/classic/confused.gif) curious |
|
| George Tiller was shot to death this morning at his church.
Hopefully this is on-topic enough, but I want to know what you all think of this. Obviously it's unfortunate, at least in my opinion, because it goes against what we are all fighting for - the right to life. Even though his death may end up saving thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of younger lives, it still speaks badly of our goal. We shouldn't have to kill to stop the killing. | | comments: 25 comments or Leave a comment |
| From beliefnet.com:
Safe, Legal, and Early
The author suggests a compromise on abortion where the pro-life side concedes more freedom for early abortions and the pro-choice side concedes more restriction for late abortions.
Of course it isn't ideal by any means, but if pro-choicers would actually agree to reasonable restrictions on later abortions, well, I think that would make me feel a little better at least. However, it's not really clear to me what specific issues the author thinks we should concede. Over the counter morning-after pill, perhaps? (I would have no problem with that, personally.) Government subsidies for low-income women up through X weeks? (I would find that one harder to accept.)
I've been told by friends who live in Europe that many countries there have an abortion policy that is similar to what this article describes--very free in the first trimester, very restricted later on; as a result, abortion politics are not as divisive as they are in the US. The question is, is that really a good thing, to come to an imperfect compromise that causes the debate to lose momentum?
I don't have a solid opinion on this; I'm just offering food for thought.
ETA: Based on some of the comments, I feel the need to add that I'm looking at this from the perspective that in my country (USA), abortions are currently virtually unlimited throughout pregnancy (at least in practice). So "conceding" legal access to abortions in the first trimester doesn't seem like a big concession to me, at least not in a practical sense, because they already have that. From an ideological perspective, of course, it's a huge concession, as many of you have pointed out. And if cooperating with pro-choicers means giving up the right to that ideological position, then I agree that it's not worth it. But from a practical perspective, I don't see anything specific in the article that pro-lifers would have to concede other than what we already don't have. That's why I'm speculating about what real concessions might actually be asked of us, like more liberal sex ed or government subsidies for abortion. Those are things the pro-choice side currently doesn't have, at least not as fully as they would like. And, unlike agreeing to the notion that a 7-week-old fetus need not be protected by law, some of those things might actually be worth conceding.
Joie
X-posted | | comments: 12 comments or Leave a comment |
| Mary Ann Glendon has declined Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal over the plans to honor pro-abortion president Barack Obama.
The significance of Glendon’s refusal is enormous. The most accomplished Catholic laywoman in America — former ambassador of the United States to the Holy See and current president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences — has refused to accept Notre Dame’s highest honor. It is a signal moment for the Catholic Church in the United States. It is a signal moment for the Church’s public witness. It is may even be a signal moment for Notre Dame. What Glendon will not say at Notre Dame will finally be a fitting response to what Gov. Mario Cuomo said there some 25 years ago. (Who she is, and why is she vital to the Catholic Faith and Pro-life Movement)
Father Jenkins was looking for another false Catholic to promote the name, and instead received this letter from Mary Ann:
Dear Father Jenkins,
When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.
Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.
First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.
Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:
• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”
• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.
It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.
In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.
Yours Very Truly,
Mary Ann Glendon
(Best Quote)
"Whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation"- Cardinal Francis George of Chicago
Oh and by the way, Obama commented on the story in his usual manner of not addressing the issue and trying to appease everyone.
Look for Ed Henry's question | | comments: 3 comments or Leave a comment |
| | I've just become president of Cambridge University Pro-life Soc. Any suggestions of speakers or events? | | comments: 8 comments or Leave a comment |
| One reason that I have never accepted the view that abortion is part of "women's rights" is that in many parts of the world abortion is being used against women in extreme ways like this.
Selective abortion causes 32mln excess China males
PARIS (AFP) – Selective abortion in favour of males has left China with 32 million more boys than girls, creating an imbalance that will endure for decades, an investigation released on Friday warned.
The probe provides ammunition for those experts who predict China's obsession with a male heir will sow a bitter fruit as men facing a life of bachelorhood fight for a bride.
"Although some imaginative and extreme solutions have been suggested, nothing can be done now to prevent this imminent generation of excess men," says the paper, published online by the British Medical Journal (BMJ).
In most countries, males slightly outnumber females -- between 103 and 107 male births for every 100 female births.
But in China and other Asian countries, the sex ratio has widened sharply as the traditional preference for boys is reinforced by the availability of cheap ultrasound diagnostics and abortion.
( Read more... ) | | comments: 5 comments or Leave a comment |
| The decisions haven't received much attention, but the Vatican has quietly and informally rejected three potential ambassadors for pro-abortion President Barack Obama. The potential diplomats reportedly were rejected because of their pro-abortion views and inability to improve relations with the Holy See.
http://www.lifenews.com/int1150.html
I can't find any other reports in English, but if I find anything in Italian, I'll edit this post for additional links. | | comments: 1 comment or Leave a comment |
| From Breitbart.com:
US births break record; 40 pct. out of wedlock
More specifically relevant to the comm, an excerpt:
Meanwhile, U.S. abortions have been dropping to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports. Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.
Cultural attitudes may be a more likely explanation. Morgan noted the pregnancy of Bristol Palin, the unmarried teen daughter of former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The young woman had a baby boy in December, and plans for a wedding with the father, Levi Johnston, were scrapped.
"She's the poster child for what you do when you get pregnant now," Morgan said.
Teen women tend to follow what their older sisters do, so perhaps it's not surprising that teen births are going up just like births to older women, said Sarah Brown, the chief executive for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
Indeed, it's harder to understand why teen births had been declining for about 15 years before the recent uptick, she said. It may have been due to a concentrated societal effort to reduce teen births in the 1990s that has waned in recent years, she said.
Thoughts? | | comments: 9 comments or Leave a comment |
| I saw this on a friend's blog:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44943
Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It
Friday, March 13, 2009
On Wednesday, only two days after he lifted President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, President Barack Obama signed a law that explicitly bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."
The provision was buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday. Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it has been included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996.
Does anyone understand why this happened? What the hey? | | comments: 9 comments or Leave a comment |
| |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
prolife![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/classic/smile.gif){kind=small}
hopeful![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/classic/thinking.gif){kind=small}
contemplative