CADRE Comments

I have been told that I need to accept “scientific consensus” as fact. Think, for example, about climate change. According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for the great State of California , “The scientific community has reached a strong consensus that global temperatures are rising rapidly as a direct result of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from human-made sources.” The Governor’s web-page then provides me with summaries of reports on climate change supporting that assertion. As defined by RationalWiki (a web-page that contains information fashioned for those who think themselves intellectually superior because they are atheists), the scientific consensus is “what most scientists in a particular field of study agree is true on a given question, when disagreement on the question is limited and insignificant. The consensus may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research.” Despite the indisputable fact even in...

As I prepare to join my local Walk for Life this morning, I came across an article by Dr. David Hershenov, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Buffalo entitled " Ten (Bad, But Popular) Arguments for Abortion ." As someone who teaches college level courses in Political Science, I found that Dr. Hershenov is confronting the same arguments that I deal with when teaching on the Right to Privacy, which extended to include a Right to Abortion, as allegedly found in the United States Constitution. While I enjoyed the entire article, the arguments that I want to emphasize are arguments 3 (The inability of men to become pregnant) and 4 (The burdens of pregnancy and childrearing are not equally distributed). Let me take them one at a time. The inability of men to become pregnant Dr. Hershenov states the basic argument this way: Some students sincerely suggest that since men cannot get pregnant, they shouldn’t enter the abortion debate. Since their bodies won’t be ...

One of the classes I teach at the university is a course on Ethics, and I am using a book by Ralph Dolgoff, Donna Harrington and Frank M. Lowenberg entitled " Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice " as the text. Overall, I think that it is a good Ethics textbook largely because it provides a balanced viewpoint on the need for values in social work. For example, the book makes the argument (without committing to it) that those engaged in social work cannot avoid making value judgments in ethical decisions because trying to do what is right necessarily involves making an value choice. Also, I book notes that some (including me) think it is ethically wrong for a social worker to cover-up her own values when counseling another person because it creates a false (and ultimately unproductive) relationship with the person being counseled. Still, one of the exemplars in the book gave me pause – not because I thought it raised a deep ethical quandary, but because I wondered how ...

In the wake of last week’s shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado, the women’s health organization called for a national show of support for reproductive healthcare Saturday. This “National Day of Solidarity” will center on rallies in Washington and Colorado, with smaller events scattered across the country, according to the group’s website. Supporters also showcased solidarity on social media by using the hashtag #StandWithPP and adding pink filters to their profile pictures. Planned Parenthood is calling for an end to the rhetoric that, they say, has fueled violence against abortion clinics and marginalized groups, such as the black, immigrant and transgender communities.  ~    Planned Parenthood 'day of solidarity' heldafter deadly clinic shooting   This is so typical of groups like Planned Parenthood. Ignoring for the moment that Planned Parenthood is responsible for more deaths over the last 50 years than any other organization (and probably any ...

"We are constantly evaluating our security policies and procedures to ensure the continued safety of the women, men and families who depend on Planned Parenthood for health care," said Planned Parenthood of the Heartland spokeswoman Angie Remington in a statement. "Even in a poisonous environment that feeds acts of violence, we will never back down from providing high quality health care in a safe, supportive environment."   ~ Planned Parenthood, critics in Dubuque Countycondemn Colorado attack The shooting of three people at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood has rightfully been condemned by every individual who cares for life. The gunman, clearly a man with severe mental illness, took guns to this clinic and began to shoot people indiscriminately. This is wrong, and no one condemns this type of action louder than the pro-life community which is working hard to protect all life. The problem is that the pro-choice community blames this problem on the...

This past week, I received my e-mail edition of World Science . I enjoy reading this popularizer of science stories, and if you could go back and search my blog entries you would find that many of my posts about science arose from something that I found on this website. But as a popularizer of science, I find that the website falls victim to the same problem other science popularizers such as Carl Sagan have fallen victim: making unsupportable claims when the evidence does not fully support (or may even counter) my world view. In World Science, I regularly find stories making assertions as if they are supported scientific findings that are either unsupported or inadequately demonstrated to be supported. In fact, in many cases the claims seem to be not only unsupported but incapable of being supported. Take, as an example, a very interesting story entitled Facial expressions reported to develop before birth . As a person who supports the right to life of the unborn, I am always interest...

Last Sunday morning, Dr. George Tiller was murdered in the Lutheran Church which he attended Sundays. Dr. Tiller, known for his late-term abortions, was gunned down by Scott Roeder -- a man described by his family as mentally ill . According to Roeder's ex-wife, Lindsey Roeder , "There has to be mental illness there. He couldn't cope with day to day life," she said. "He couldn't cope with the struggle of paying bills. He couldn't cope with not being able to make ends meet." There appears to be little doubt that Mr. Roeder's actions were finally motivated by his anti-abortion views and the late-term abortions performed so infamously by Dr. Tiller. According to a news article posted on KWCH.com (which labels Scott Roeder a terrorist), Lindsey Roeder further believes her former spouse killed because of his views on abortion: "He was determined that if the abortion doctor killed the baby then he didn't have any right to live either, it was ...

In an earlier post , I noted that Obama had taken what I (and many in the pro-life movement) believe to be an extreme position by signing an executive order that reversed President Bush's earlier order prohibiting federal money to be given to organizations that perform or counsel abortions. I opined that such a move was not good. In the comments to that post, one reader named "A Hermit" argued: [S]ince the majority of Americans in polls regularly express their support for women's right to control what happens inside their own bodies it is you who are in opposition to what Americans think their tax dollars should support. I responded: Now, with respect to the polling -- yes, more Americans claim to be somewhat pro-choice (by margins mostly within the margin of error), but those that believe that they should always be legal are in the distinct minority. Moreover, I know of no poll where a majority of Americans approve of the government funding abortions. Do you have on...

From Obama reverses Bush abortion-funds policy : President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information — an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century. Obama's executive order, the latest in an aggressive first week reversing contentious Bush policies, was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by abortion rights foes. The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office. "For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us," Obama said in a statement release...

A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog entitled U.N. Petition for the Rights of the Unborn about a petition that the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute ("CFHRI") created calling for government to interpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as protecting the unborn child from abortion. The Petition was responsive to one being presented by pro-abortion groups. The CFHRI has just released a press report in which they announce that they have received 300,000 signatures in support of the alternate petition. Here is the entire press release from the CFHRI: December 9, 2008 MEDIA ADVISORY/ PRESS CONFERENCE 300,000 NAMES SUBMITTED TO UN IN FAVOR OF RIGHT TO LIFE Where: Press briefing room, UN headquarters, New York Contact: Austin Ruse, President 202 -393-7002 (office), 202-531-3770 (cell) UN Headquarters, New York – Tomorrow, December 10th, a coalition of social conservative groups from around the world will present a petition of 330,000 names calling for Member States o...

On December 10th, pro-abortion groups will present petitions asking the United Nation's General Assembly to make abortion a universally recognized human right. The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute created an alternate petition drive that calls for government to interpret the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as protecting the unborn child from abortion. They need at least 100,000 signatures by December 10th, the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please go to the Online Petition and submit your signature. If you know anyone that would be interested in doing the same you are welcome to forward this on to whomever. "A nation that aborts its own children is a nation without hope." ~ Pope John Paul II

Immediately prior to the election, I wrote an article entitled Abortion: In this Election, One Candidate is Not Viable that discussed President-Elect Obama's horrible record on right-to-life related issues. In writing the post, I used an article by Robert George entitled Obama's Abortion Extremism as a source. While I did not mention it in my blog, the article did discuss President-Elect Obama's extreme views on stem cell research. It noted: For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money s...

Recently, I was driving to work when I passed an older model Chevy puffing along covered in progressive bumper stickers. Most were political in nature, but a few were related to issues that concern social conservatives and Christian conservatives. One older bumper sticker read: "Don't like Abortion? Don't have one." Obviously, the person supports the idea that this entire abortion controvery would go away if those of us who opposed abortion would simply recognize that its a matter of personal choice and that we should simply not have an abortion if we don't like the practice. *sigh* With all due respect to the owner of this Chevy who I am certain has an IQ higher than a toaster's, I really don't know how anyone can hold a view so incredibly shallow and vapid. Come on, sir. Given that the debate revolves around the question of the humaness of the person being aborted, does it really strike you that this is somehow a solution to the issue? In his article, Ob...

In an election cycle that is dominated by Bush bashing, anti-Iraq fervor, and over-hyping of the current financial crisis, some think that some of the other social issues are irrelevant. Yet, for those like me who are not huge Sen. John McCain fans, I find that I cannot, in good conscious, vote for Sen. Barack Obama, a candidate whose abortion views are so extreme as to make his views completely unacceptable. Let me make this clear: I am not a one-issue voter. If I thought that Sen. McCain's economics would send the United States into financial free fall, while Sen. Obama's views were the only things that could save the economy, then I might be forced to vote for Sen. Obama even if he were pro-choice/pro-abortion. But even in these troubling financial times, abortion remains an important factor in determining which candidate will receive my vote. However, even if I believed it would be economically disastrous to elect Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama's extreme views on abortion make...

Like many other pro-life voters I was inspired by the story of the Republican Candidate for Vice President, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. She is a mother of five. Her most recent child has Down syndrome. Gov. Palin learned this well before the birth, but -- living up to her pro-life beliefs -- did not abort. While reading about Gov. Palin, I ran across a shocking New York Times story about babies with Down syndrome. Perhaps I was naive, or just uninformed, but I had no idea that the abortion rate for the unborn diagnosed with Down syndrome is 90 percent. I like to think that this is not representative of parents nationwide. I have known women who were reluctant to take such tests or rejected them outright because they knew the results would not affect their decision. Still, 90% is a shocking abortion rate. In addition to the high percentage, the raw number of such abortions continues to grow. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is recommending that all pregnan...

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (of all circuits) has just issued a rather significant free speech case related to the right to protest abortion. According to the L.A. Times story : The 1st Amendment rights of two anti-abortion activists were violated when they were ordered to stop circling a Rancho Palos Verdes middle school in a truck displaying graphic photos of aborted fetuses, a federal appellate court ruled Wednesday. Overturning an earlier district court judgment, a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously ruled that school officials and sheriff's deputies violated the men's free speech rights by ordering them to leave the school's neighborhood. The court in its ruling on a lawsuit brought by the activists cited the concept of a "heckler's veto," which states that free speech cannot be limited based on listeners' reactions to the content. The activists' "speech was permitted until the students and drivers around the school rea...

In today's America, we seem to have a proliferation of new rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The most famous of the rights is the Right to Privacy which, of course, is not specifically identified in the Constitution, but which became a right by judicial reasoning in Griswold v. Connecticut . We also have (supposedly) a right to work, a right to food, a right to die, a right to medical care, a right to education, a right to personal autonomy, and many other rights that have seemingly become part of a core of unenumerated rights that either are recognized by law or which some argue should be recognized by law (with the obvious implications following therefrom). While I personally don't think that some of the aforementioned unenumerated rights deserve to be thought of as rights, each of these "rights" deserve respectful consideration. Yesterday, however, I read a newspaper article where a new right was being articulated that I hadn't previously encountered: ...

In doing some research, I came across a webpage entitled U.S. Abortion Deaths Compared to U.S. War Deaths . As the title suggests, it compares the total number of people killed in the various wars with the number of people killed in abortions since 1973. The comparison is put on a chart where a little man (like the one pictured at right) represents 10,000 people killed. While I am aware that some would dispute that the people killed in abortion are "people", for those of us who recognize that the entity killed is a living human being who should be entitled to all of the same rights and privileges as full grown adults from the moment of conception, the chart's comparision really drives home the point of how horrendously large the numbers of people killed has been. Addendum: For a related post on the numbers related to abortion, see Abortion by the Numbers .

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the federal ban on partial-birth abortions is constitutional and is, therefore, the law of the land. The decision was 5-4, with Justice Kennedy writing for the Court. It overruled or superseded six other federal court decisions finding the federal ban unconstitutional. For Court watchers, this is an especially interesting case. It affirms what many suspected; that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are going to be conservative on this issue. This does not shift the Court much concerning Roberts, who replaced Chief Justice Rehnquist. But it does denote a shift concerning Alito, who replaced Justice O'Connor, who was more liberal when it came to abortion cases. It also demonstrates that Justice Kennedy, who some believe has drifted to the left in recent years, cannot be classified so easily. I have a busy day today, but I will likely update after I have read the decision.