Planned Parenthood murders living, breathing babies to harvest brains

Aug 21, 2015 by

By Archbishop Cranmer:

Some people never have legs, and yet they can run the marathon of life faster than the Olympian. Some people never have eyes or ears, but they see secret things and hear silent words that we can never apprehend. Some people never have a voice, but they shout louder than the relentless hubbub of all humanity. Their spirits whisper, slide and sense a world of pain. Their impulse is to crawl back into the womb and long for the day they had never been born. If they could cry, they would. But tears can’t form in the orbits of darkness. They are living and partly living; alive, but not fully being.

read more

Planned Inhumanities: From Roe to Obergefell

Aug 4, 2015 by

By Robert Oscar Lopez, Public Discourse: I am, perhaps, an outlier on the current Planned Parenthood scandal. I am not shocked that high-ranking officials in an organization by that name would be caught on video speaking callously about the harvesting of fetal organs. The fact that money is exchanged, and the question of whether this constitutes a “market,” do not particularly matter to me. Well-educated people believe that “planned parenthood” can lead to a socially just world. That hubris is the main horror from which all these other abhorrent things descend. The Monstrous Idea of “Planning”: From Roe to Obergefell It is the “planned” part of the organization’s title that needs to be urgently criticized. What kind of society is so lacking in humanity that it thinks “parenthood”—a phenomenon responsible for, well, the perpetuation ofeverything social about us—can be regimented, organized, scheduled, commoditized, bought, sold, and programmed by people? And in particular, by the people running this soulless association? Stop for a moment and consider the intellectual consequences of this foundational belief that humanity can be “planned.” Such a belief means that humans can be edited and arranged, by contract if necessary. To be editable, people, particularly children, must become objects rather than subjects. Once they become objects, children can be treated as dehumanized products in multiple ways, all bad. They can be disposed of, like integrated waste, when they are not convenient or not proceeding according to plan. Just as we recycle cans of Diet Coke and milk cartons, we can try to limit the wastefulness of our garbage by recycling the broken-down parts of people: their livers, hearts, lungs, and brains. All of this is management of objects, which costs money, so who is to say that there shouldn’t be some remuneration? Why not reimburse the people who are stuck with this waste for the cost of transporting and recycling it? Why not pay them a salary and make the salary attractive so that qualified professionals are indeed willing to take on such a ghoulish task? The flip side of the disposable child, of course, is the child as a desired commodity. Since people can be thrown out when they are not convenient, they can also be manufactured and maintained through industrialized processes, when the natural process of lovemaking is not convenient. And alas, this leads us straight to the sublimities of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges. Read here...

read more

Will we say no to genetically modified humans?

Jul 28, 2015 by

By Peter Franklin, Conservative Home: It’s easy to forget that eugenic ideas were once mainstream and exercised their pernicious influence far beyond Nazi Germany. In the future, however, it may be transgenics not eugenics that we have to worry about. Genetic modification is a technique that can be applied to human DNA, not just plant and animal DNA. Currently we place moral and legal limits on doing so, but how long will this last? It’s a question considered by Eugene Volokh in theWashington Post. He begins by referring to a Pew poll on the acceptability of genetically engineering a baby to enhance its intelligence: “83 percent of Americans said it’s not appropriate, and only 15 percent said it was appropriate.” Volokh appears to count himself among the minority, but whether one approves or not is besides the point, he says – GM humans are going to happen anyway: “Say the Chinese don’t see things the way we do. Out come some number of babies with horrible birth defects (truly a tragedy, and as a purely ethical matter, possibly a reason against such experimentation; I’m just saying the ethics won’t matter much). And then things get worked out, and now the new generation of Chinese, or Japanese, or Russians becomes on average much smarter than the new generation of Americans. How long will American public opinion remain opposed to a technology that seems vital to national success, and perhaps even national independence?” In other words, the West can’t impose its morality on the rest of the world, but the rest of world would, given the chance, out-compete the West. A further point is that is that even in countries where it is banned, the rich will still find a way of getting hold of any sufficiently advantageous technology: “They’re rich, so they can go overseas to get it (even if they don’t want to risk the domestic black market). Hard to stop that without some pretty intrusive monitoring, even if there was the will to try.” One of the strongest arguments against genetically enhanced intelligence is that it would create a genetic underclass. Volokh’s counter-argument is that if we don’t make the technology widely available we’ll have a genetic overclass instead. Read here...

read more

Firm faith: The company bosses who pray

Jul 7, 2015 by

By Katie Hope, BBC: Saying prayers with colleagues would feel a bit uncomfortable, too intimate an activity in the workplace for many people. Yet at Chinese real estate giant Tentimes Group, that is exactly what they do in the boardroom before making important decisions. Three-quarters of the firm’s eight-strong senior management team are Christians and founder and chairman Wang Ruoxiong, who himself became a Christian seven years ago, says that when the company has to make difficult decisions, it turns to the Bible for guidance. In fact, he goes as far to say that it’s not him but God running the firm. “He controls everything. I am merely a housekeeper of Jesus, assisting him in taking care of the company,” he says.   Mr Wang admits that Christian beliefs alone have not driven the firm’s success, acknowledging that employees’ technical skills such as marketing and sales capability have also played a big part. But he believes that following Christian values have helped to make the firm more effective. He says that employees feel cared for, helping them to perform better, and that treating the company’s suppliers more fairly has created stronger relationships with them, for example. He also believes his approach is unique, which he says will help the company to survive despite increasing competition. Read here...

read more

“Equal marriage”: Is There A New Christian Ethic for Sex and Marriage?

Jul 2, 2015 by

by Andrew Goddard, Fulcrum: Last week’s Supreme Court judgment in the US, following swiftly after the Irish referendum, has made the legalisation of same-sex marriage major news again. As in England, the Christian voices have been divided. There are those, including me, who regret this and are aware of the major challenges they now face in bearing witness to marriage as they understand it. There are also Christians who welcome the extension of the good of marriage to same-sex couples and see it as simply sharing it with gay and lesbian people. Surprisingly little attention has been given as to how the latter group should now develop their sexual ethic given same-sex couples can legally marry. Are they simply extending the traditional teaching about sex and marriage to same-sex couples and what would that look like? Or are they – as seems to be the case with most secular supporters – simply welcoming the rectifying of an injustice which now gives gay and lesbian couples the same options to choose from in relation to structuring their relationships as straight couples have had for some time? One of the criticisms often made of “revisionist” groups is their lack of a clear, consistent and widely-accepted ethic for same-sex couples. Various elements have contributed to this including perhaps a reticence to appear critical of aspects of gay culture and so perpetuate a sense that Christians were against gay and lesbian people. But most significantly there was the lack until very recently of the institution of marriage, which lies at the heart of a Christian sexual ethic, as a social and legal reality for structuring such an ethic. This is no longer the case so what might a Christian ethic of “equal marriage” look like? How will Christians, particularly those identifying as evangelical, who support the new form of marriage articulate such an ethic? How will they encourage people to live it? How will they commend it to the wider gay and lesbian world, parts of which have supported the changes to marriage law in theory as a matter of justice but are less than fully enthusiastic about embracing marriage in practice or viewing it as making a moral demand on their own lives? This is clearly a massive area but five key areas merit some sort of attention – four traditionally understood as matters where the Christian vision provides moral teaching applicable for all people, the final being focussed on Christians. Read here...

read more

A tawdry saga that speaks volumes about an age in which babies are too often treated as commodities

May 7, 2015 by

by Steven Glover, Mailonline: To deprive a mother of her child is a very grave thing to do, and scarcely ever justifiable. To then deny that mother the right to tell her story is cruel and inhumane. But this is exactly what has seemingly just happened in the High Court. Ms Justice Russell (she insists on the ‘Ms’ to stress her feminist credentials despite co-habiting with a male partner) has decreed that a 15-month-old girl should be taken from her ‘homophobic’ mother and sent to live with her wealthy gay father and his male lover. The judge says that the unnamed woman, a Romanian who has lived in Britain for more than 15 years, lied when she agreed to become a surrogate for the gay couple’s child. In fact, she wanted a baby herself, and effectively tricked the father, also Romanian, whom she had known since they were both teenagers. The woman may be an unsteady character, but that does not disqualify her from motherhood. (She already has two daughters who live with her divorced British husband.) If she were a violent heroin addict or alcoholic, there might be a case to take away her child, but there is no suggestion that she is unfit to be a mother. All the judge could say against her was that she was ‘duplicitous and manipulative’ and homophobic, and that she had tried to smear the gay couple. These may be unpleasant traits, but they are not proof of the woman’s defective maternal instincts. Moreover, one objection in particular raised by Ms Justice Russell is very hard to accept. She said the mother had breast-fed the child in order to demonstrate her closeness to her baby. Surely breast-feeding is a natural and desirable activity for which a woman should not be castigated? Whatever the mother’s flaws, it was her eggs that had been fertilised by artificial insemination. She had carried the baby for nine months, and undergone the pain of giving birth. We can’t know what her intentions were when she undertook to act as a surrogate mother, but it is possible that she changed her mind — or that at any rate that her determination to keep the baby strengthened — as the pregnancy progressed. That would be entirely understandable. Now she will be granted only limited rights to visit her child, while the gay couple, who are neither married nor civil partners, are given joint parental responsibility. It’s impossible to know how permanent their relationship will be. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this case is the gagging order which prevents any of the characters involved ever speaking about the affair in public. Read here Read also:  Gagging of mother forced to hand baby daughter to gay dad...

read more