(Prolifer)ations 4/10/08

by Jivin J

  • In First Things, Christopher Kazcor discusses the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' recent attempt to push pro-life doctors into referring women to abortion providers against their consciences.

  • Stem cell research may not find wonder cures?

    Stem cell research, we have long been told, should pave the way for revolutionary new treatments to help millions of patients around the world. Yet despite the years of study and debate about the potential, therapies have been slow to materialize. Even the head of the UK National Stem Cell Network has now conceded that stem cell research may never deliver new treatments."

  • Paul Kengor on Bob Casey, Jr., Barack Obama, and abortion:

    Sen. Barack Obama is so extreme on abortion that he has managed to achieve what I once thought impossible: He is to the left of Hillary Clinton on abortion. I say that as someone who has written a book on Hillary Clinton, with a special focus on her abortion fanaticism.....

    Does Casey not understand the threshold upon which he and his nation now stand? Roe v. Wade is at last in peril, but if he achieves his dream of an Obama presidency, Obama can tip the Supreme Court's balance in a pro-Roe direction for decades to come. There have been 40 million abortions since 1973.

    Consequently, Senator Casey's endorsement of Obama is an undeniable betrayal of his, his father's, and his church's pro-life work and commitment.

  • Michael West, founder of Geron and former head of Advanced Cell Technology, is working on a new way to try to make money off embryonic stem cells. He hopes to "sell lines of cells that he dubs 'human embryonic progenitors' - cells that have inched partway along the continuum from embryonic stem cell to differentiated adult cell" because embryonic stem cells are so difficult to control.


  • Comments:

    test

    Posted by: Bethany at April 10, 2008 11:33 AM


    From the first story about the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, this sounds like a good plan to me:

    Many of the problems occasioned by the ACOG ethics report could have been avoided by recognizing the proper scope of liberty enjoyed by both patients and physicians. Physicians should determine what they consider to be medically indicated and whether they will perform a given procedure. Patients should be able to choose their doctor and accept or reject whatever services their doctor offers, seeking a second opinion if desired. Doctors as well as patients may misuse this autonomy, but this prima facie balance is preferable to the one-sided emphasis on patient autonomy found in the recent ACOG Committee Opinion.

    Christopher Kaczor, Ph.D., is director of the University Honors Program and associate professor of philosophy at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. He is also co-author (with Janet E. Smith) of Life Issues, Medical Choices.


    Posted by: Janet at April 10, 2008 4:21 PM


    Pro-lifers in the great state of Pennsylvania now realize how fragile Bob Casey's commitment to ending abortion is. It plays second fiddle to securing an extreme pro-abort president for his extreme pro-abort party. So much for efforts to moderate the Democrats' stance on the issue of abortion. This should be a lessen to those who think we will ever get anywhere fighting abortion by putting so-called "pro-life Democrats" in office. "Pro-life" and "Democrat" in any practical application is an oxymoron.

    Posted by: Jerry at April 10, 2008 5:46 PM


    I dont have a problem with trying to reduce the number of abortions in the US by making contraceptives more accessible, by making sex education more comprehensive, funding programs to help women who WANT to continue their pregnancies. But insisting abortion "should be" illegal and women shouldnt be "allowed" to do what they think is best simply because antichoicers 'dont approve' is another matter.

    Posted by: TexasRed at April 11, 2008 11:14 AM


    TR, should we also judge arson, rape, and armed robbery by the same criteria, and decide that legalizing them and simply trying to persuade people not to engage in those is the way to go?

    Posted by: bmmg39 at April 12, 2008 12:01 PM


    Bmmg, no, because there is nothing like the argument of bodily autonomy, the unborn being inside the body of a person, not being sentient, etc., in the cases of arson, rape, and robbery.

    You don't see any significant amount of opinion for them being legal because they are much, much different from the abortion issue.

    Posted by: Doug at April 13, 2008 2:52 PM


    The rapist may argue that he's only doing something with his (or her) body, ignoring the aggrieved party. The parallels can easily be made.

    Posted by: bmmg39 at April 13, 2008 9:47 PM


    Nope - again, the rapist isn't concerned with something inside his body, and thus there's no significant amount of opinion for rape.

    Posted by: Doug at April 14, 2008 7:07 AM


    The aggrieved party in abortion is, scientifically (I don't bother with theological arguments) a human being, whether you choose to call her/him a "something" or not.

    Posted by: bmmg39 at April 14, 2008 10:03 PM


    "Human being" as far as existing as a living human organism, yes, sure, but that's not the argument.

    Posted by: Doug at April 19, 2008 2:24 AM