De-Coding the Term “Pro-Life”

Rudyard Kipling declared that, “Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.”

In a timely posting, blogger Joe Healy of DefendLife.org adds clarity to the term “pro-life.”

**********

To Be or Not to Be Pro-Life?

With the ongoing election cycles, legislative sessions, and judicial nominations, many people are using the term "pro-life" to describe themselves and others. But have you stopped to think about what this term really means? I certainly hope so, for "what does the soul yearn for more ardently than the truth?" (St. Augustine); but if not, I will provide a brief reflection on what it means to be "pro-life."

It is clear that human personhood begins at conception. Philosophers and theologians have taught this for hundreds of years. Boethius wrote at the beginning of the 6th Century, "Person is an individual substance of rational nature. As individual it is material, since matter supplies the principle of individuation. The soul is not person, only the composite is. Man alone is among the material beings person, he alone having a rational nature. He is the highest of the material beings, endowed with particular dignity and rights." The human is the only material being to be a person; other persons are purely spiritual: angels and the Trinitarian God.

Modern science confirms that human life begins at the moment of conception. It is at this point that a new human creature exists, with its own unique human genetic code. If left alone to develop according to his or her nature, this new human creature will advance through all of the stages of prenatal development, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age. This creature will be the same person throughout all of his or her phases of life and even beyond natural death into everlasting life.

At the moment of the conception of a human person the entire fabric of the universe is changed forever, as a new immortal soul is created by God and mysteriously united with a new human body. It happened when you were conceived, it happened when I was conceived, and it happened when each of the 50,000,000+ aborted Americans were conceived.

Now, back to the main point of this article. What does it mean to be "pro-life"? In a nutshell, it means that we acknowledge the truth that a human being is always a human person; that the human person has an inherent right to life throughout his or her entire life cycle; and that society has a moral obligation to protect the life of that person. It is really that simple. Anyone who claims to be pro-life but who denies any part of this definition is not being intellectually honest (and is arguably not pro-life). Who was it who said, "Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me?" (Mt 25:40).

Here are some common examples of people claiming to be pro-life, but who are in actuality deceiving themselves and others:

1. "I am personally pro-life, but I cannot impose my morality on others." This statement denies the fact that a human person has an inherent right to life and that society has a moral obligation to protect the life of that person. We impose our morality on others when we have laws against murder, child pornography, stealing, and so on. This is the main purpose of government - to ensure the security of its citizens. Since the unborn are people, it is the duty of the government to protect them. Any law that allows the killing of unborn people is inherently unjust. To refuse to protect the unborn from abortion is to be anti-life.

2. "Abortion should be illegal, except in the case of rape or incest (or whatever other exception someone wants to throw in)." This position denies the entire definition of what it means to be pro-life. The person who is conceived in rape or incest is still a human person and must be protected from an untimely, unnatural death. Personhood does not depend upon the moral fortitude of one's parents, so the fact that one's father committed a crime (rape, incest) against one's mother does not make the resultant person any less human. The person conceived in rape or incest still has an inherent right to life (just ask Rebecca Kiessling, Jenni Maas , or any of the other outspoken people who were conceived in rape or incest and given a chance at life!). To be for abortion exceptions is to be anti-life.

3. "Human embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is justified because it will lead to life-saving cures." This position treats the human embryo as less than a person, when in fact it is a human person. It also subjects the human embryo to a radical utilitarianism where its life is regarded as less deserving of protection than another human life, when the only differences between the two are stage of development and physical location. Since stages of development and physical locations do not determine personhood, the human embryo must always be regarded as a person and not be subjected to life-ending experimentation. While we must always value the quality of life of the sick we must never use an illicit means to achieve those ends. To be pro-ESCR is to be anti-life.

4. "Euthanasia (or "mercy killing") is sometimes the best solution for the person who is sick, his or her family, and/or society in general." The person holding this position seeks to alter the definition of person to exclude those who are sick, elderly, or disabled. It is never right to take an innocent human life, not even if that person is in terrible pain and begging you to do so. It is up to us to let the natural processes take their course, while at the same time seeking healing and medical attention as appropriate. To deny someone food and water in order to hasten death is a gross offence against the human person. To allow for euthanasia is to be anti-life.

5. "I know that my candidate is not 100% pro-life, but he or she has the best chance of beating the 100% anti-life candidate in the general election, so I'm going to support him or her rather than the 100% pro-life candidate who is still in the running." This is a tempting position to take, but it is very wrong. Because of the faulty logic behind this position, abortion is still legal today. If the entire pro-life community would stand up for only truly pro-life candidates, the entire political landscape in America would change radically for the better in six years or less. We would have a 100% pro-life president, a large majority of pro-life Senators and Representatives in Congress, a large majority of pro-life legislators in our state and county governments, and pro-life governors and executives throughout America. With all of those pro-life leaders in place, our judiciary would become full of pro-life judges. Abortion-on-demand in America would end. If you don't think this is possible, look at what happened in Croatia, where the number of abortions decreased by 90% between 1989 and 2005. To be pro-life except when "political expediency" requires you to support the more anti-life of two candidates is to be anti-life.

To apply these principles to the current presidential race, it is obvious that all of the Democrat candidates are anti-life. They all favor keeping abortion, euthanasia, ESCR, and human cloning legal.

That leaves only the Republicans as pro-life possibilities:

Rudy Giuliani is anti-life, as he is in favor of keeping abortion, euthanasia, and ESCR legal;

Mitt Romney is anti-life, as he is in favor of legal abortion for those conceived in rape or incest, he is in favor of destroying at least some human embryos for research, and he does not oppose euthanasia;

John McCain is anti-life, as he is in favor of legal abortion for those conceived in rape or incest and favors the legal destruction of human embryos for ESCR;

Mike Huckabee is seemingly pro-life;

Ron Paul is seemingly pro-life;

Alan Keyes is seemingly pro-life.

Are you pro-life?

Further reading: Human Personhood Begins at Conception by Dr. Peter Kreeft.

[source]

Human-Animal Hybrids in Britain Described as Monstrous Scientific Tomfoolery

The following report was issued from Population Research Institute in their weekly briefing letter.

**********

Chimeras, Great Britain and the Brave New World

by Colin Mason

In Greek mythology, the chimera was a vicious beast born of the unholy union of the monsters Typhon and Echidna. With body parts liberally borrowed from goats, dragons, and lions, this mixed-up monster surely haunted the dreams of many a Grecian child, and has sparked the imaginations of countless storytellers since. The term has been picked up by the medical profession, however, and carries an even more sinister connotation.

In what is the stuff of apocalyptic science fiction, modern scientists are experimenting with ways to combine human and animal genes. Often this is done for the purpose of stem-cell research, medical advances, and transplants. Often, however, the research ends with the creation of strange human/animal hybrids, or chimeras.

According to a 2005 article in National Geographic: "Scientists feel that, the more humanlike the animal, the better research model it makes for testing drugs or possibly growing "spare parts," such as livers, to transplant into humans." Apparently so, because scientists have since produced several weird specimens of human/animal genetics, including pigs with human blood, embryos created from human DNA and rabbit eggs, and mice with partially human brains.

This type of laizzez-faire medical experimentation has always been cause for concern among conservatives, even those who wouldn't necessarily consider themselves "pro-life" in name. This concern reflects a greater common discomfort with scientific tampering of this nature, a discomfort reflected in Great Britain's 1990 "Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act," which forbade researchers from experimenting with hybrid embryos. However, the British government has been considering legislation that may push mankind's patience with this sort of scientific irresponsibility over the edge.

Great Britain's health minister, Dawn Primarolo, is pushing a new bill that will sweepingly liberalize British laws related to human/animal genetic experimentation. To the delight of the Washington Post, Britain's top scientists have reviewed the cause and are seriously considering it. The Post reports that the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority, "which oversees human embryo research in Britain, means that two previously submitted proposals to create hybrid embryos . . . will be evaluated in detail. Decisions on those proposals, widely anticipated to be positive, are expected in November." Although Parliament has yet to vote on the issue, it seems that the measure is not meeting the resistance it met in 1990.

According to Britain's Daily Mail, if this resolution passes, it will allow scientists to "take an animal egg—such as a cow or rabbit egg—remove the genetic material and replace it with human DNA. It can then be turned into an embryo from which stem cells—the body's master cells—can be harvested." This will be done in the hopes of researching and possibly curing such diseases as Alzheimer's and type-1 Diabetes, even though the continuing work with embryonic stem cells has consistently proven futile. In this vein, it is likely that combining animal and human cells in this way will prove just as useless to medical research.

Notwithstanding the countless touted benefits to such research, it seems that the collective stomachs of modern everymen have finally been turned. A casual perusal of the web shows that blogs and discussion groups resound with concern.

What does this tell us? Nothing we don't already know—the supposed "cutting edge" of science is not only out of touch with traditional morality, but with the society it purports to represent. Simply put: most human beings are not ready to intermingle our genes with those of animals in any way, shape or form. The fact that normally liberal nations like France and Germany have completely outlawed the procedure should tell us something about the nature of this debate. Leftists cannot comfortably pigeonhole this as a "conservative" or "pro-life" issue; it is manifestly obvious that it is a question that addresses our very humanity itself.

British scientists are seeking permission to perform medical experimentation on a level that would have been unthinkable only 10 years ago . . .and the government seems eager to give them this permission. How far behind will the United States be? People are not ready for this type of scientific tomfoolery, and we in the pro-life cause must never allow them to grow comfortable with atrocity.

Colin Mason is the Director for Media Production at PRI.

**********

More background on this from the following sources:

British Government Backs New Bill for Human-Animal Cloning Hybrids
LifeNews.com, MT - Oct 9, 2007

Neither man nor beast Bill Saunders
Washington Times, DC - Oct 15, 2007

Bishop Sgreccia: "Monstrous" to Allow Hybrid Embryos
Calls for Mobilization of Scientific Community
ZE07090605 - 2007-09-06

When Bioethics Turned Secular
Zenit Interview with Physician Father Joseph Tham

Children Treated as Property

I realize the posting is more than a week old but over at StandToReason Blog, Melinda has generated a little bit of useful discussion about blastocysts, i.e. embryos less than two weeks old from conception.

Here’s what she had to say. Also take a minute or two to look at the interesting comments to her posting.

**********

Children Treated as Property

Yes, I'm referring to blastocysts, embryos less than two weeks old from conception, as children. I'm not begging the question asserting them to be children because we're argued extensively for their humanity before. So I'm starting from that point. Let's "trot out the toddler," as our friend Scott Klusendorf has taught us.

Is a two-year-old child the property of her parents, such that the parent can hand her over for experimentation for the "greater good"? Most sane people will answer immediately and intuitively "No!"

Then why, if we simply move back in time two years and almost nine months, that same being can be treated as property by its parents?

A new poll of parents with unused frozen embryos shows that a majority are willing to donate their embryos for scientific experimentation, specifically to develop new stem cell lines. One parents put a nice moral veneer on this decision as doing "the greater good" of developing cures for ailing people. As a proponent of this moral theory given moral dilemmas, let me clarify what is accept under "the greater good." There's no moral dilemma involved in frozen embryos. You're not being forced to choose between two unavoidable, conflicting options. Someone might see the dilemma as keeping them frozen or donating them. There's a third alternative: Allow them to be carried and hopefully born. Adopt them out if necessary. Better yet, let's use some wisdom and not create them in the first place without the sole intention of giving them the opportunity to be live. The "greater good" doesn't apply because there's no moral dilemma.

Would this same mom offer up the children born from that same batch of embryos for "the greater good"? Of course not. Her children are not her property to do with as she wishes.

Unfortunately, the head of a bioethics institute says that "These embryos have very special and moral meaning for the people who create them." Umm, they don't have meaning just "for" the parents. That's relativism. These beings have objective, intrinsic value and meaning in virtue of what they are: human beings. When she places the value in subjective terms, the people who hold that value then have the power to devalue it and treat them like property. Her moral formulation puts all the moral meaning to the parents. The parents may value them, but that's not why they have value. She continues, "...we need to know their preferences." See, the moral value and decision making is centered in their personal preferences.

Another parent believes that it's better for her frozen embryos to be used for the good of others rather than terminating them. But terminating them is exactly what will happen to them as their parts are dissembled for stem cells. It doesn't make it morally acceptable because they'll be used for the good of others. Again, she would never use that justification for her toddler. Indeed, she would justifiably recoil at the thought.

Even one woman who recognizes that she's created human life uses the relativistic language: "For me, it would be destroying my children," she says. "That's a human life that we created." Even if the embryos is valued by the parent as a human life, the embryos aren't value in virtue of the parent's value.

The entire idea of donating embryos for experimentation originates with the assumption that the value is relative to the parents and they are property. We don't treat toddlers that way; we shouldn't treat children at their earliest stage of development that way.

Interesting Poll On ESCR from OneNewsNow

OneNewsNow asked a good question recently about embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Take a look at the responses.

Most readers thought powerful lobby groups accounted for the biggest part of the confusion. Personally, I think that’s probably an accurate reflection of reality and underscores the need for much more education by the pro-life movement.

Remember, ESCR is actually worse than abortion. To find out why, read this article.

**********

POLL: The clamor for federally supported ESCR

We asked you to vote on what you view as the primary reason we hear little about the successful therapies being developed using adult stem cells, but significantly more about why the government ought to be funding research involving embryonic stem cells. Find out how your fellow OneNewsNow.com readers responded.

OneNewsNow.com asked you: What is the PRIMARY reason we hear more about the need for the gov't to fund embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR) than about the successes of adult stem-cell treatments? You said:

Read the OneNewsNow.com article that inspired this question here.

Was The $30M Schwarzenegger-McGuinty Deal For Non-Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

Earlier this week Vote Life, Canada! sought to bring some pressure to bear on the Catholic Bishops of Canada in regard to the recent scandal caused by pro-abortion Catholic politicians who were “devout” and “dedicated” to their faith.

As you may know the Bishops, to date, have declined to address the scandal.

In the middle of this commotion, a day or two after our Press Release, we received an email from an MP who directed us to a news item indicating that the $30M Schwarzenegger-McGuinty deal would not involve embryonic stem cell research but rather adult stem cells from cancerous tumours. One sentence buried in the midst of a lengthy article by the National Post on Schwarzenegger’s visit, an article mostly surrounding economics and environmental issues, served to carry this vital information.

Vote Life, Canada! immediately set about to try to corroborate this information, recalling from experience that it is sometimes very difficult to get to the heart of the truth with large corporations and government organizations. Two years ago, in an effort to clarify details of reported funding for embryonic stem cell research by the Canadian Cancer Society [a different organization than the one to receive the $30M funding] the writer of this blog had to dig below the surface of standard public statements to get a clear picture of the truth.

And without surprise, arriving at a true picture related to this latest Ontario deal was going to require more than a simple phone call. After two days of calling and leaving messages for Dr. Tom Hudson, President and Scientific Director of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, no calls had been returned; this despite the fact that Dr. Hudson was said to be in the office but at meetings.

Other phone calls were made to different parties in the cancer/stem cell field and some limited but useful information was gleaned from one individual high up in the food chain of Canadian embryonic stem cell research. Other phone calls and messages were not returned.

However, yesterday I was able to easily connect with the Communicators Director at the OICR and I had a helpful conversation regarding my inquiry. I was assured that the $30M stem cell funding was indeed directed towards [adult] cancer stem cell research and not human ESCR. The Director was forthright and appeared competent to answer my questions. It was certainly a relief to hear the Director’s assurances that the money would not be spent on ESCR but I was concerned when I learned that the OICR was not planning to issue any sort of public statement related to this matter. Wouldn’t it be wise to at least post the needed clarification on their website at least? Surely other Canadians are concerned about the issue.

I asked the Director if the OICR would respond in writing to a letter from me requesting confirmation of the information that was shared over the phone. The Director responded in the affirmative and so today I prepared a letter from Vote Life, Canada! to OICR covering the points of concern. Hopefully the letter from OICR will properly address the concerns and clear up the whole question.

I will report the contents of the letter to the Vote Life, Canada! blog as soon as it is received.

***********

So now some readers will certainly ask: If the $30M deal was not going to support embryonic stem cell research, wasn’t the call by Vote Life, Canada! to Archbishop Collins a miscalculation and wasn’t it unwarranted?

Not in the least.

If efforts by Vote Life, Canada!, who combed the news reports for days for all available details, could miss that one sentence [with as yet unsubstantiated information], what can be expected of Mr. Joe Public? Obviously what’s in everyone’s mind, and particularly in the minds of the Catholic faithful, is that two renegade Catholic politicians are publicly defying the faith while claiming to be good Catholics and at the same time engaged in support of the gravely immoral activity of embryonic stem cell research. No one could be blamed for thinking exactly that. That was the perception and the perception is just as effective at scandalizing people as the truth itself.

It really doesn’t matter even if the Bishops knew the stem cell research wasn’t of the human embryonic kind because their knowledge would not in the least have cleared up the confusion in the minds of the faithful without an appropriate public statement. In addition there is the outstanding issue of the politicians’ claims to be in good standing with the Church which has been a long standing scandal with Canadian Catholic politicians and demands urgent address.

We get a very useful and timely example from Cardinal Pell in Australia, who has been the subject of three recent posts on the Vote Life, Canada! blog. In current news the Cardinal is making public statements, almost daily, on exactly the same kind of scandal involving Catholic politicians and the funding of embryonic stem cell research

Whether or not Cardinal Pell follows through on the legitimate discipline for these politicians which he has suggested may apply [and indeed it DOES apply!] at least the Cardinal can never be blamed for failing to address the public nature of the scandal, which is exactly what needed to be done in order to defend the faith and to remedy the scandal. He has condemned the separation of faith from political life which the politicians displayed and he has condemned in no uncertain terms the evil of embryonic stem cell research and everyone in Australia now knows it. The effectiveness of his approach is unarguable since even Australia’s national daily newspaper clearly states [scroll down to find the story] the core issues for the benefit of the entire nation and commends the Cardinal for holding fast to eternal truths.

This is precisely what Canada’s Bishops needed to do in our current circumstances with the recent visit of Governor Schwarzenegger.

Vote Life, Canada! therefore stands by its actions and its call to Canada’s Bishops.

Refresher On Moral Objections To Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Stem—cell—research—is—much—in—the—news these days. Yet there is really a dearth of helpful information about it for the average Canadian. The media have not made the issue clear at all and continue to add confusion by making no distinctions in their use of the term "stem cell research," generally using it synonymously with embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).

Christians—indeed ALL people--ought to be STRONGLY opposed to the funding of embryonic stem cell research, just as they are to legalized abortion. Another kind of stem cell research, called adult stem cell research has no ethical, moral issues and has proved very successful in the treatment of many serious diseases. Adult stem cell research is the only kind of stem cell research that Canadians ought to support.

Meanwhile, the front pages of the LA Times, NY Times, USA Today, and Washington Post all featured stories yesterday about a research breakthrough that may render embryonic stem cells needless.

Below is the text of a press release prepared last year by Vote Life, Canada! after President Bush exercised his first veto of ESCR. It's still a very helpful and brief summary. Yesterday, Bush indicated he will again veto the latest attempt to fund ESCR in the USA. His opposition is admirable and courageous, and worthy of imitation by morally minded citizens everywhere.

[In addition, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason writes an exceptional series on The Confusing Moral Logic of ESCR.]

**********

Important Questions Raised by Bush’s Veto for Life

Reprinted from July 25, 2006

Last week President George Bush blocked legislation that would have required taxpayer money to fund embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). President Bush stated that the use of government funds to knowingly bring about the destruction of human life "crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect.” It is important to note that there is no law against doing embryonic stem cell research in the US but Bush’s veto ensured that no federal dollars can be used to fund such research. Many of his critics, including reporters in the mainstream media, described it as a "right-wing" or “religious” assault on federally funded embryonic stem-cell research.

ESCR requires that stem cells be taken from five day old human embryos, directly resulting in the destruction of that embryo. However, stem cell treatments can originate from sources other than human embryos. Adult (non-embryonic) stem cells are available from placentas and umbilical cord blood and have already proved successful in treating more than 70 different diseases and conditions. By contrast, ESCR has produced no successful medical therapies in humans. Yet those who promote ESCR make bold (and misleading) claims that it is immensely promising and that it has the potential to relieve or cure dozens, even hundreds, of serious human illnesses such as cancer, Parkinson's and diabetes.

A confusing Toronto Star editorial condemned Bush’s veto as short sighted and stated that Canada will be hurt by this. The claim was made that “Canada wisely has gone a different route, cautiously and under very strict rules approving the research use of stem cells from embryos…” The truth is that last month the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) announced that it will allow the creation of living human embryos specifically for research purposes and approved a $523,000 project to do just that. The CIHR unashamedly stated that it does not consider that a human being at the embryonic stage has any inherent moral status. One of the chief researchers on the project said he sees no problem with the research. “There are embryos going down the drain all the time.”

Here’s the important question. Even if the extravagant claims of ESCR materialized over time, would it be right to do research on embryos? Science, philosophy, moral common sense and Christian teaching argues that the embryo qualifies as a human being. From the moment of conception a unique individual is created, distinct from its father and mother and every other living thing, first in the form of a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus.

Moral logic for judging this unborn human life must be applied by a truly just society. It’s wrong to kill innocent human beings. ESCR (and abortion) kills innocent human beings. Therefore ESCR (and abortion) is wrong. If the zygote or embryo or fetus is not a human being, no justification for either abortion or ESCR is necessary. However, if it is a human being, no justification for taking his or her life is adequate.

Human beings have intrinsic value and their worth cannot be evaluated in terms of how useful one thinks them to be or what one thinks of their future or current quality of life. Arguing the benefits of ESCR ("Think of all the people it will help"), even if true, holds no merit. If embryos are in fact human beings (and therefore intrinsically valuable), then the end does not justify the means in the case of ESCR. We do not sacrifice human beings for medical purposes regardless of the good it might bring others. Human beings, unborn or born, deserve the same legal protections.

What should we do with the “leftover” embryos? Simple, really. Because each embryo is a valuable human being, we should treat him/her like anyone else. Each one should be protected from being destroyed or sold off as a medical experiment or pillaged for valuable body parts. Find mothers who are willing to adopt them (by implantation) or failing that, allow them to die naturally. To prevent a similar dilemma in the future, in vitro fertilization should be restricted to the number of eggs that can safely be carried by the mother without risking "selective reductions" which is medical jargon for abortion.

A careful analysis of the funding of ESCR will show that it is actually morally worse than legal abortion. No woman purposely sets out to kill her unborn child through abortion. Many factors are brought to bear upon her before she makes such a decision. By contrast, those who advocate public funding for ESCR purposefully aim to destroy human embryos and seek to convince the public to pay for it, even though the prospects for cures are very distant and unproven, and even though adult stem cell research is daily proving itself and is unquestionably ethical. Furthermore, when parents of these living human embryos donate them to science, they deny the humanity of their own offspring and reduce them to scientific objects and commodities.

We as Canadians must do our best to care for those who have difficult diseases but we must do it without hurting others in the process. Aggressively promoting and funding the scientific research of somatic (adult) stem cells is the wise, just and decent path to follow. Vote Life, Canada! calls on the government of Canada to do exactly that and to immediately stop the creation and funding of human embryos and ESCR.

Vote Life, Canada! Calls on Toronto Archbishop Collins To Redress Scandal

Monday, June 4, 2007

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Vote Life, Canada! Calls on Toronto Archbishop to Redress Scandal Surrounding Governor Schwarzenegger’s Stem Cell Deal with Ontario Premier McGuinty

Contact: Eric Alcock, President, Vote Life, Canada! 403-253-1577

Calgary, AB, June 4/Christian Newswire—“The scandal caused in Canada and the US by so-called ‘devout’ Catholic politicians who defy the true Catholic faith reached new depths of disgrace last week,” says Eric Alcock, President of Vote Life, Canada!

Even as Governor Schwarzenegger met with Premier McGuinty to contract a deal which underwrites $30 million in public funds for the willful destruction of embryonic human beings, both politicians brazenly affirmed a staunch Catholic faith.

Catholic teaching condemns embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) as a crime against the dignity of embryonic human beings since they have a right to the same respect as the child already born. Furthermore, Alcock noted, “ESCR is a worse crime than abortion since no mother sets out from the beginning to abort her child whereas ESCR always envisions the purposeful, willful destruction of human life at the embryonic stage.”

“Canada has descended a path of barbarism and secularism, even sponsoring the monstrous evil of abortion, thanks to a succession of ‘devout’ Catholic politicians and Prime Ministers,” says Alcock. “Their testimony confirms the spiritual apathy and neglect of Canada’s Bishops, practically all of whom continue the cowardly policy of leaving the defense of innocent Unborns to a persecuted minority of ‘fundamentalist’ pro-lifers.”

Ironically, Alcock disclosed that in Toronto on the same day of Schwarzenegger’s and McGuinty’s scandalizing actions, Toronto’s Archbishop Collins was delivering a speech entitled The Contribution of Religion to Society. One point the Archbishop made was that religion contributes to the common good of society by bringing to bear on current social issues the insights arising from religion’s ancient heritage of wisdom.

Alcock also pointed to an interview in December past when Archbishop Collins inferred that he would not rule out excommunication for politicians who defied Church teaching. Father Raymond J. de Souza judged in an article in the National Post that “the sheer size of Toronto and its status as the nation’s media capital make the Archbishop the sine qua non of the Church’s presence in Canadian public life.”

Therefore, for the sake of Canada’s Unborn, Vote Life, Canada! calls on Archbishop Collins to reverse the trend of deadly silence among the Bishops, to immediately and publicly address this scandal through reaffirming Church teaching on ESCR and to initiate Church Canon law discipline for all professing Catholics who refuse to make their consciences correct with Magisterial teaching, starting with Premier Dalton McGuinty.

************

Posted to Vote Life, Canada! website

Unborn Humans Are Victims of Size Discrimination

Size is all about physics isn’t it? According to Merriam-Webster, physics is the physical properties and composition of something. That would obviously include appearance factors as well.

Imagine then that the physics of your "being" was used as a reason to eliminate you. For example, suppose you were seriously overweight, a not so uncommon occurrence these days. Now further imagine that a movement of people advocated for your death because of your abnormal or unusual size. Take it a step further and imagine if these people insisted that the only argument they needed for your death was your size and that your death would certainly contribute to the future well-being of the world. Suppose this movement was gaining a strong following and that in some places in the world overweight people were already paying with their lives.

Stupid and unbelievable! you might say. There’s no way something like that could happen.

Here’s news for you. Something like that is already happening.

To the unborn.

The following offers some proof for my claim.

According to the SLED test developed by Stephen Schwarz in "The Moral Question of Abortion", size is one of four determinants that are used against the unborn as an excuse to kill them. Each one of these determinants is used as grounds to discriminate against the unborn and treat them in any way that suits the purposes of the rest of humankind.

These purposes range from the simple inconvenience of abortion to the profit motives of the abortion business to the “ethics” of embryonic stem cell research, etc. etc.

Just last week a remarkable story impacted people’s attention worldwide. In some countries it has made a real splash and caused a stir. I blogged about the story in a rather facetious manner. In Canada, the story didn’t really seem to stick.

And now here's ABC News with the admission that the birth of a very tiny baby creates a very big problem for pro-abortion folks. Very interesting reading.

Why should that be a problem?

Seems like many in our culture can’t seem to see past the size factor, even in life and death scenarios. How shallow is that? Until a little baby appears before their eyes, miraculously converted into a child from the mere unknown and uncertain status of a fetus, they can’t envision the unborn as anything more than a “dot” or a “clump of cells.”

The report says

The fact that she has survived and grown to more than four pounds, and is about to go home, is a miracle, yes, but a miracle that may have an effect on the debate over abortion. And it may change what people think about life.

Also included is the comment from one reporter:

Bio-ethicists we spoke with today argue that Amillia is a miracle baby, and that it's unwise to change public policy based on miracles.

Right. I guess now all those doctors and bio-ethicists believe in miracles. Not.

Ok, so we won't be fooled into thinking little Amillia is going to revolutionize the way Canadians [or others] view the issue of abortion, but she has helped to focus attention and generate discussion. That in itself is a good thing for the unborn, because truth is always on the side of justice and that means justice is one step closer for these who are discriminated against and killed because of their size.

And in case you think my earlier analogy [of the overweight being killed on the basis only of their size with no other argument advanced] is silly, you need to read this story, about the Des Moines Register Editorial Board who recently issued a disastrous editorial on legislation to legalize human cloning for research in Iowa.

If you can believe it [more silliness], here’s their best argument for killing human beings when they are at their smallest and in their earliest stage of development:

There are some lawmakers who believe destroying a clump of cells smaller than the period at the end of this sentence is analogous to taking a human life. We have no argument to persuade the people who believe that.

Seems like their best argument is no argument at all! ProLifeBlogs notes the following about the newspaper’s empty and insistent discrimination:

They have no arguments to disprove that human embryos are living human beings.

Exactly.

Why not? Because it's true, perhaps? Because embryology clearly shows that human embryos are human beings at the earliest stage of development?

At least the editorial staff of the Des Moines Register can acknowledge they are entirely bereft of anything resembling an argument. What's amazing is their arrogance to continue to assert their completely untenable and unargued for position.

Not satisfied with "amazing" arrogance, the Register astounds with their insistent bigotry,

We can only remind Iowans that what we're talking about here are microscopic masses of cells. Destroying them isn't the same as destroying a human life. Holding back this research, though, could prevent saving and improving lives.

They can only point out that human embryos are small and then assert that somehow because human embryos are small they are not human life.

Same old argument that’s been used literally millions of times to kill innocent unborn humans in Canada. We feel much better about killing them the smaller they are. When they are as small as the dots on a page we don’t even need an argument. Simply insisting on it is sufficient for the social and moral engineers, while the rest of the population nods and says, “It must be so.”

Is the truth no longer important to Canadians?

Who then will stand up for the truth?