Just booked moments ago: I will debate Nadine Strossen (President of the ACLU 1991-2008) at the University of North Carolina October 13. This will be our fourth debate in two years, and the first since Nadine left her post as President. Topic: Abortion: Legal Right or Moral Wrong? I highlight one of my recent exchanges with Nadine in my new book, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culutre.
You can read the first chapter of the book on-line here.
.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
LTI Podcast Episode 11 [Serge]
After some technical delays, The Life Training Institute Podcast episode 11 is now available. In this podcast, Rich and Scott discuss one of the more challenging questions asked of pro-lifers: if Roe V Wade is overturned, what should the punishment be for those who have abortions? Rich also reveals more evidence from the pro-abortion choice literature that emergency contraception is not effective in decreasing unplanned pregnancies or abortions.
Our hosting company has changed, and the new link for the direct download of the podcast is http://media.libsyn.com/media/serge13102/LTIPodcastep11.mp3 . You can also subscribe via Itunes. For past subscribers, you should be redirected to the new feed automatically.
Our hosting company has changed, and the new link for the direct download of the podcast is http://media.libsyn.com/me
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Killing Two Birds With One Clone [Bob]
I recently wrote on my own blog about the moral questions surrounding organ donation. In a nutshell, the topic has become more morally controversial in recent years as technology -- and a redefinition of what it means to be dead -- have "evolved" with the times. It used to be that one was considered dead when they became cold, blue and stiff. But as medical technology advanced to the point that organ donation became more viable, transplant medicine demanded that vital organs not be degraded beyond a useful state — a state that “cold, blue and stiff” often violates. So, in 1968, a Harvard committee proposed a more updated definition of death based on the brain dead criteria that has become a part of the national lexicon.
Even more recently, another definition of death has been put forward for organ donor candidates. The notion of cardiac death is defined as an “irreversible cessation of cardiac function.” This questionable criterion hinges on the definition of "irreversible," especially when you consider that the heart from one patient who has been labeled thus can be removed and instigated to go on beating in the chest of another patient. In that case, does irreversible mean that "we can't" restore cardiac function, or that we "won't." [re: Salvo, Spring 2009, Issue 8, p. 32]
In each case, there is a dilemma in play that begs us to consider the morality involved in not only choosing between offering one -- or several -- individuals a new lease on life through organ harvesting and taking the life of another by doing so.
These are difficult decisions. At least they have been in the past. But now, thanks to the insight of Sir Richard Gardner of Oxford University, they no longer need be. Gardner has found an ingenious solution to avoid the moral and medical difficulties of organ harvesting by completely bypassing the need to tiptoe along the hazy line that defines death ...
But, as if Gardner's clever solution isn't despicable enough, a careful reading of the announcement shows that there may be a method to his macabre madness and that his outrageous suggestion may be nothing more than floating a trial balloon.
Notice that Dr. Gardner is described as a "stem cell expert."
No doubt he, or someone like him, will soon propose that, in order to mollify the moral objections that the "extremists" may see in using aborted fetuses to harvest body parts, we could avoid all such controversy by creating embryonic stem cells for the specific organs we need to replace. In other words, utilizing IVF embryos or engaging in therapeutic cloning for the purpose of embryo destruction to produce needed organs would be touted as a morally superior option. No ripped up babies! No motivation to abort babies! We'd just be doing "therapy."
This is the place where stem cell research and harvesting organs meet. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that there is a slippery slope here and that we have been on it for many years. Those who have constructed the slope are doing nothing but covering it with grease.
Even more recently, another definition of death has been put forward for organ donor candidates. The notion of cardiac death is defined as an “irreversible cessation of cardiac function.” This questionable criterion hinges on the definition of "irreversible," especially when you consider that the heart from one patient who has been labeled thus can be removed and instigated to go on beating in the chest of another patient. In that case, does irreversible mean that "we can't" restore cardiac function, or that we "won't." [re: Salvo, Spring 2009, Issue 8, p. 32]
In each case, there is a dilemma in play that begs us to consider the morality involved in not only choosing between offering one -- or several -- individuals a new lease on life through organ harvesting and taking the life of another by doing so.
These are difficult decisions. At least they have been in the past. But now, thanks to the insight of Sir Richard Gardner of Oxford University, they no longer need be. Gardner has found an ingenious solution to avoid the moral and medical difficulties of organ harvesting by completely bypassing the need to tiptoe along the hazy line that defines death ...
An Oxford University stem cell expert has urged the use of aborted children in organ transplants as a solution to the shortage of available organs. Sir Richard Gardner has called for a feasibility study on the possibility of obtaining organs from the bodies of aborted babies.Brilliant!He said, "It is probably a more realistic technique in dealing with the shortage of kidney donors than others."
But, as if Gardner's clever solution isn't despicable enough, a careful reading of the announcement shows that there may be a method to his macabre madness and that his outrageous suggestion may be nothing more than floating a trial balloon.
Notice that Dr. Gardner is described as a "stem cell expert."
No doubt he, or someone like him, will soon propose that, in order to mollify the moral objections that the "extremists" may see in using aborted fetuses to harvest body parts, we could avoid all such controversy by creating embryonic stem cells for the specific organs we need to replace. In other words, utilizing IVF embryos or engaging in therapeutic cloning for the purpose of embryo destruction to produce needed organs would be touted as a morally superior option. No ripped up babies! No motivation to abort babies! We'd just be doing "therapy."
This is the place where stem cell research and harvesting organs meet. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that there is a slippery slope here and that we have been on it for many years. Those who have constructed the slope are doing nothing but covering it with grease.
Friday, May 1, 2009
One is Incredibly Vapid and Ignorant, the Other is an Heiress [Serge]
Maybe its just my strange sense of humor, but I found this article in Yahoo news comparing the wrong views on the flu pandemic by Joe Biden and Paris Hilton quite entertaining. Starting with this headline:
Its amazing, comparing our Vice President with some celebrity. I think we should outraged. For Paris.Flu confusion spreads fast
Paris Hilton and Vice President Biden aren't the only ones mixed up about the new flu.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Abortion and Recession "Linked" Together, Despite No Evidence [Serge]
What do they really teach in journalism school? This article from Reuters absolutely amazes me. Here is the big headline:
Get that? The current economic conditions have been linked to an increased number of abortions. The article begins with a story of a nurse who is employed deciding to have an abortion. Then, in a strange twist, the article reports:
Of course a professional journalist is not going to let something like no data to support her headline divert her story, so she does offer some "evidence". Here it goes:
That's all we need. Go ahead and run the headline saying that they are linked.
Pathetic.
CORRECTED: Recession linked to more abortions, vasectomies
Get that? The current economic conditions have been linked to an increased number of abortions. The article begins with a story of a nurse who is employed deciding to have an abortion. Then, in a strange twist, the article reports:The recession may be a factor influencing more Americans to opt out of parenthood with abortions and vasectomies, although there is no data available yet to suggest a trend.What? There is no data available YET. So we have no data that would actually link the number of abortions to the economy, and no available data suggests a trend, but some belief that the data will be coming. Hopefully soon. Sheez. This is truly a faith-based initiative.
Of course a professional journalist is not going to let something like no data to support her headline divert her story, so she does offer some "evidence". Here it goes:
Yea! Anecdotal evidence from "experts"! This should be good.
Even so, there is some anecdotal evidence that would-be parents are factoring the rough economic times into the most personal of reproductive choices, some experts said.
Wait, this is not anecdotal evidence, but real evidence. And it seems to support the exact opposite of what her theory is. Maybe we should just keep reading.
In 2005, the last year for which data is available, the U.S. abortion rate fell to the lowest level since 1974, according to the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a nonprofit group focusing on reproductive issues.
Who needs real evidence when Vicki has phones ringing off the hook! How can one even imagine stronger evidence! And we have have reports of as many as three women who have stated that the current economy have influenced their decision to have an abortion.But at the National Abortion Federation, a hotline for women seeking abortion information has been "ringing off the hook," according to the group's president, Vicki Saporta.
"We are currently getting more calls from women who report that they or their partner have recently lost their job, and we are also hearing from more women facing eviction," she said.
That's all we need. Go ahead and run the headline saying that they are linked.
Pathetic.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Links [SK]
William Saletan on China's 16 million missing girls. They were aborted
The introduction and first chapter of The Case for Life is now online.
Jivin J on self-defeating logic of abortion advocates and informed consent laws.
The introduction and first chapter of The Case for Life is now online.
Jivin J on self-defeating logic of abortion advocates and informed consent laws.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Pathetic Justice [Bob]
Though our new president's radical pro-abortion views are well-known, it is insightful to pay attention to those he nominates to carry out the administration's policies and the legal defense of those policies. To that end, I thought it would be interesting to note one of his nominees to the Justice Department that hasn't gotten much press in the mainstream media.
President Obama has nominated Indiana University Law professor Dawn Johnsen to head the department's Office of Legal Counsel. Among her qualifications, Johnsen is a Yale educated, ACLU trained veteran of the Clinton administration (nothing surprising so far) who also happened to work as Legal Director of NARAL. During her tenure there, Johnsen argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, a case that involved a Missouri law that restricted the use of state funds and resources for abortion (note: the law did not ban abortion), that any restriction that makes abortion less accessible is:
But that's not all.
Along with equating pregnancy with slavery, Ms. Johnsen opposes: 24-hour waiting periods, parental consent requirements for minors, and all laws against partial birth abortion. In fact, Johnsen believes that agreeing with her on these issues should be a litmus test for judicial nominees because "the notion that legal restrictions [are] some kind of 'reasonable compromise' -- perhaps to make abortion 'safe, legal, and rare,' prove nonsensical."
Is this the Obama adminstration's version of moral neutrality in the law?
President Obama has nominated Indiana University Law professor Dawn Johnsen to head the department's Office of Legal Counsel. Among her qualifications, Johnsen is a Yale educated, ACLU trained veteran of the Clinton administration (nothing surprising so far) who also happened to work as Legal Director of NARAL. During her tenure there, Johnsen argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, a case that involved a Missouri law that restricted the use of state funds and resources for abortion (note: the law did not ban abortion), that any restriction that makes abortion less accessible is:
tantamount to "involuntary servitude" because it "requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest [in the life of the unborn] ... [a woman, therefore] is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends ... such forced pregnancy" violates the Thirteenth Amendment. (Source: National Review, 3/9/09 p.17)If you don't have your Constitution in front of you, you may have forgotten that the Thirteenth Amendment is the one that prohibits slavery.
But that's not all.
Along with equating pregnancy with slavery, Ms. Johnsen opposes: 24-hour waiting periods, parental consent requirements for minors, and all laws against partial birth abortion. In fact, Johnsen believes that agreeing with her on these issues should be a litmus test for judicial nominees because "the notion that legal restrictions [are] some kind of 'reasonable compromise' -- perhaps to make abortion 'safe, legal, and rare,' prove nonsensical."
Is this the Obama adminstration's version of moral neutrality in the law?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)