Planned Parenthood Sets Record [Jay]

Here are some of the numbers from this article at LifeNews. I will just cut, paste, and vomit:

However, Planned Parenthood's latest annual report reveals it made $902.8 million dollars from 2005-2006 and did 264,943 abortions.

And this:

The annual report showed that Planned Parenthood reported receiving taxpayer funds totaling $305.3 million -- a whopping $32.6 million (12 percent) more than last year. As a result, taxpayer money now accounts for 34 percent of Planned Parenthood's income.

'The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is losing donations, its clinic income is down and you and I are being forced to pay more so the organization can kill our children through abortion and spread its perverted ideology throughout the land" Sedlak said.

And finally:

"This marks the 34th year in a row that Planned Parenthood has reported "excess revenue" — otherwise known as profit," Sedlak said. "Over the years, Planned Parenthood has reported total profits of over $700 million. It has amassed a treasure chest of assets worth $839.8 million."

Sedlak estimates that about $112.6 million, or 32.5 percent of the income its facilities generate, comes from doing abortions.

What a grisly way to make a dollar. As a fundraiser, I look at giving trends from foundations and private donors. So many well-respected philanthropists and charitable organizations contribute to this cause it is not worth listing them all. It is unfathomable to me that donating to Planned Parenthood has no greater stigma than it does. We have a lot of work to do.

Outstanding Young Talent [SK]

Last night at Fayette County Library, Josh Brahm of Georgia Right to Life delivered a well-researched and articulate case against embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) and human cloning.

Josh, only 23 and already an accomplished musician, is an excellent communicator and a rising star in the field of pro-life apologetics. Josh's main points in part 1 of his presentation were as follows:

1. The morality of ESCR comes down to one qustion: What is the Embryo?
2. The pro-life case against ESCR can be defended both scientifically and philosophically. Scientifically, we know a) the embryos in question are whole living members of the species homo sapien, and b) destroying them for research is not producing the cures to match the hype of proponents. In fact, embryo cells are currently treating no known diseases because we cannot control them and even if we could, our bodies tend to reject foreign tissue. Conversely, adult stem cell treatments (which do not require killing the donor) are treating 72 known diseases. These cells are easier to control and are ethically unproblematic to use.

Solid stuff. Notice the nice mix of pro-life apologetics and ethical alternatives that should mark every good presentation on ESCR. (Some of Josh's notes on the topic can be found here.)

In part 2, Josh tackled the issue of cloning. Regrettably, I had to leave early, but I have no doubt he covered this material equally well.

Nice work, Josh.

Hope vs Hype for Embryonic Stem Cells [Serge]

I have heard it said that today's scientific community does not have great faith. According to this article, this is clearly not true. They have great faith in their ability to find solutions to problems in human beings that they have been unable to find in other animals. They also have faith in their ability to predict not only cures, but actually how long the procedures that will create the cures will take. They quickly mention some progress using adult stem cells, and simply assume that this progress will accelerate once they can use hESCs. Their faith is amazing, only surpassed by the media's gullibility in reporting such empty promises.

The introduction of human embryonic stem cells (hEBCs) in another human being has two significant clinical problems. First, there is the problem of immune rejection. However, this may not be an issue in the eye, in which immune rejection does not frequently occur. However, there is also the problem of teratoma formation. Although teratomas are benign (meaning only that they do not spread to other tissues), you can easily see why growing tumors may be a bit of a problem in the small, closed environment of the eye. So far this problem has alluded investigators. You can see how this issue will be handled way down in the article:

Pete Coffey of UCL, the director of the project, said he was confident the procedure would work in humans but the team needed to ensure the safety and quality of batches of cells, which would take time.

Which is a bit like saying that we are confident that we will soon be visiting other distant galaxies, but the team needs time to work out that "light speed" issue. Its amazing how the media falls for this.

Freedom of Conscience, eh?

British Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly responding to outspoken Catholic priests warning that Catholic politicians that support abortion rights are in violation of church teaching and undermine their relationship with the church body says the following:

"We have freedom of conscience issues for extremely good reasons in this country. Issues like abortion and so forth are ones that people have deep personal convictions on," Ms Kelly said.

"Church leaders will always say what they think - that's their prerogative. Politicians have to make up their own minds based on their individual conscience. And that's the way it should be," she added.

My understanding of conscience is that it is consciousness of a moral obligation or standard of goodness and the conviction to act upon that awareness. I think she means that everyone must determine whether they intuit a moral element to abortion either way and act accordingly. You should notice that her list of such issues is a rather short, “abortion and so forth.” One is left imagine what other issues she equates with abortion.

There is a problem with this line of thinking. The standard of conscience that the pro-life position appeals to is largely accepted by most civilized cultures. I think that Secretary Kelly would embrace the belief that killing innocent human beings for elective reasons is immoral. The British government and politicians do not need to examine their conscience to determine whether ending innocent human life when it is not necessary is wrong. The objection then may be that whether or not the unborn are innocent human beings is the question of conscience. That is wrong. The nature of unborn human life is a question of identification not conscience.

There are two incontrovertible facts about abortion:

1 – The unborn are living “somethings.”
2 – Abortion terminates the life of the unborn.

Neither of these points is arguable. The unborn are alive and they are in fact an actual entity of some sort and the abortion procedure kills them. The obvious question from those two facts is “What are the unborn, then?” Whether or not truth (2) is moral or immoral is not determined by how I feel about the unborn but how we identify them. The morality that I will apprehend and respond to is set. Does it apply to the unborn? To answer that question we have to determine what they are.

What they are is not affected by what I think about them, though. The unborn are actually and objectively something. Pro-lifers assert that the unborn are whole, distinct, living human beings and offer philosophical and scientific arguments to support that claim. This description either accurately describes the nature of the unborn or it does not, but that question is one of intellectual argument not conscience.

Some Comments on Comments [Serge]

In the comments in this post, this blog was accused of not allowing opposing comments on this site. This is simply not true, as evidenced by many of our threads in which we deal with opposing points of view. In fact, we have never rejected a comment for the reason that it disagrees with our point of view. We welcome and encourage those with opposing points of view to make their case in as persuasive a way as possible.

However, this is a moderated blog. Some comments are inappropriate and are rejected by myself or the other blog contributers. Obviously, a comment that uses profanity will be rejected. Also, a comment that is submitted to a number of posts or other blogs will be rejected as spam. Comments have to also be appropriate for the post, and materially address the content of the post in question.

In other words, a comment will never be rejected because it opposes our view. It will be rejected if it fails to address our point of view. There were a number of comments from CRTL folks that fell into this category. We repeatedly asked the commenters to address specific points that were made in our posts, and they refused to do so. Instead, they repeatedly challenged Scott to a debate on their forum and spammed us in regards to the letter to Dr. Dobson. Such comments were rejected, and further of that type will be so in the future.

On the other hand, if followers of the CRTL strategy, whatever it is, wish to challenge the views expressed on this blog, then they will be posted and responded to. Furthermore, I wish to issue a bit of a challenge. If anyone from CRTL wishes to make a positive case for an alternative pro-life strategy that they believe will save the greatest number of human beings than the ones presented here, then I will not only allow the comment, but will initiate a separate post for it. Note that this needs to be an actual strategy, not merely stating that present policies are evil or that the recent court rulings are bad. Cursing the darkness is not enough - please explain what you wish to do in place of the present strategy. If you do so, then we would be more than happy to respond.

And She Thinks Dobson is Questionable? [SK]

Funny, one of Dobson's critics from Colorado Right to Life seems to have an indiscretion of her own brewing. In a post she is moderating over at Pro-Life Blogs (namely, an article by Judie Brown), she adds words to reader comments without indicating the added remarks are her own. She also claims that I allow no opposing comments on the LTI Blog.

Jivin J addresses both points in his reply to the offending party:

Leslie,
If you would like to respond to my arguments please do so in your own comments. Do not add something onto my comment (by editing it) and never indicate who is making the comment. That is an inappropriate way of dealing with comments you disagree with.

I'll continue to do things (and support prolife organizations) to limit and restrict abortion with the end goal of stopping abortion while you continue to waste your donors' money on cheap attacks at other prolifers.

Scott allows no opposing posts on his site? Are you referring to comments or posts? If posts then well, yeah, duh - it's his site - it doesn't make sense for him to allow a post with opinions he disagrees with.

He does, however, allow comments by individuals who disagree with him on various issues (including numerous comments by your husband) and doesn't edit them with snide comments like you do.

Yes, and for the record, here is the link to one of those posts where her own husband gets his say, without editorial additions from the LTI blogging staff! (We respond in our own comments without adding to his!) To my knowledge, the only time I've rejected comments is when those posting them repeatedly ask that I debate them on other forums (instead of the one we're writing in) or when gross profanity is present. In short, opposing views are welcome! Redundant requests (from the same people) that I carry the debate to other forums are not. (In fact, when one of CRTL's spokespersons mentioned that his comments were not showing up on the blog, I asked him to email them to me directly and they got posted that very day.)

Update, 6:00 PM--I'm wrong about Leslie's husband being the one who posted remarks to our blog. Correction accepted on that point. It was someone else from the same organization (CRTL) with the same last name. Nevertheless, we let him disagree freely, without adding any of our own words to his comments. You can see the exchange for yourself here. You will also notice that the CRTL representitive is not the only one taking issue with me. So much for disallowing dissent.

Examples of Legal Positivism [SK]

One more thought before I get back to vacation mode.

Though somewhat dated, John Noonan’s A Private Choice provides a very helpful overview of what legal positivsm looks like. One of Noonan's major themes is the clash between traditional American jurisprudence (grounded in natural law and natural rights) and that of Austrian jurist Hans Kelsen (the father of legal positivism in post 19th century America).

Anyone reading Noonan's book understands immediately that Dr. Dobson is no legal positivist on the order of Kelsen.

Noonan begins with a little history. Traditional American jurisprudence, grounded in the Declaration of Independence, held that government was not an absolute sovereign whose fiat creates rights. Rather, human beings exist prior to the state and have certain natural rights simply because they are human. Prior to the 1960s, the courts more or less upheld the traditional model.

For example, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional an Oregon law requiring that children be sent to public school. “The child,” wrote Justice McReynolds, “is not the mere creature of the state.” The parents had an inherent right to determine their child’s education—and that right was not a mere creation of the state!

Later, in Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Court declared unconstitutional a Virginia statute forbidding interracial marriage. Chief Justice Warren: “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed on by the State.” The right to marry exists prior to the state and is not dependent on it.

By the late 1960s, however, the traditional model was crumbling under Kelsen's brand of legal positivism. For Kelsen (1881-1973), the legal order is the source of all rights. “The physical person is, thus, no natural reality, but a construction of juristic thinking.” That is, the state defines who is and is not a person, who does and does not have rights. If the state says you are not a subject of rights, you don’t exist.

Kelsen has dominated court decisions on abortion since the early 70s. In a New York state case--Bryn v. New York City Health and Hospitals, 1972-- Judge Charles Breitel wrote that although the unborn in the womb were “human" and “unquestionably alive, it is not true that the legal order corresponds to the natural order.” Who was a legal person was for the law, not biology, to say. Justice Adrian Burke, dissenting, invoked Declaration of Independence to argue that all men are created equal with fundamental liberties that precede the state and arise from a source superior to it. Few listened.

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter announced (in their famous “mystery passage”) that, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” That is, human nature is not fixed, but determined subjectively. But if that is true, there can be no fixed rights that arise from that nature, including a fixed right to an abortion. So why can’t a future Court just arbitrarily decide that women don’t have a right to an abortion? The Court didn’t say.

So what are left with? The Court has affirmed the right of a person to define his own concept of existence, the meaning of the universe, and the meaning of human life. But, writes Hadley Arkes, “was there any reality or truth attaching to him? And what was there about him that commanded the rest of us to respect these decisions he reached about himself and the universe?” Why can’t we just make him up to be someone who has no rights if that fits our own concept of meaning and human life? In short, the Court’s mystery passage assumes the very thing it denies: By demanding that we respect a person’s judgement about human life and the meaning of the universe, the Court assumes that the human being in question actually exists as a rational agent, whether my own concept of the universe admits him or not.

Noonan sums up the danger this way: Your rights flow from your human nature. Yet not one of those rights is secure if power rests with nine people in robes to simply define you out of existence.

Again, can anyone please tell me where Dr. Dobson has ever said the law should define who is and is not a human being with rights?

One final thought. Prior to Kelsen, the distinction between natural and legal rights came to a head in the famous Lincoln/Douglas debates. As Arkes points out, the debates centered on this question: Were the rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence natural ones or were they merely the creation of positive law? Lincoln argued for the former: The claim “All men are created equal” meant that no man by nature is the ruler of another man in the way man by nature rules a dog. If the slave is a man, those same rights found in the Declaration (including the right to liberty) apply to him as they do the white man. In short, the slave was a human being with certain rights that spring from his nature and those rights hold across time and place. Because they are present whenever beings with a human nature are present, neither government nor popular opinion could legitimately deny them. Douglas took the latter position, suggesting that who was and was not a bearer of rights depended on popular sovereignty. Unlike Lincoln, he acknowledged no truths grounded in the nature of human beings that would hold across time and place. Instead, we only have those rights granted through positive law. Southern states did not count slaves as bearers of rights and that fact alone settled the matter.

Nevertheless, Lincoln--that great advocate of natural rights and liberties--worked incrementally to limit the evil of slavery in his quest to preserve The Union. Critics of Dobson may think Lincoln mistaken on that point, but it's clear the latter was no legal positivist.

Neither is Dobson.