by Kelli

We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email

  • Reflections of a Paralytic comments on “the petty concerns of American feminists” compared to the concerns of women in other countries:

    It’s bad enough that women to want to deny their femininity in the first place by suppressing their fertility and killing their unborn children, but to insist that the public must pay for these things otherwise it’s some kind of violation of our “rights” is, quite frankly, embarrassing to me as a fellow American woman and insulting to women who really are victims of oppressive and inhumane regimes.

    If American feminists want to make a big deal about anything “oppressive” in our country, they should really be focusing their attention to our pornified culture and its sexualization of young girls.

  • John Smeaton discusses the Children’s Referendum being proposed in Ireland, which has similar objectives to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child being promoted in the U.S. Congress. Both proposals, while seemingly beneficial on the surface, would undermine parental authority on issues like abortion and religion.
  • Real Choice points out some stark differences in information on “prenatal care” on Planned Parenthood’s website vs.

    On the [] web site, none of the main points about prenatal care is aimed at finding anything wrong with the baby. On the Planned Parenthood site, five of 11 are geared toward finding something wrong with the baby.

  • Right to Life of Michigan shares the story of a mother who converted from pro-choice to pro-life after she gave birth to a daughter with Down syndrome.
  • Stand for Life presents both sides of the debate on whether pro-lifers should vote for Republican Mitt Romney for President.
  • Wesley J. Smith explains why he believes “consumerist” egg freezing and IVF should not be covered by insurance.

  • At ProLife NZ, a human rights lawyer gives evidence that eugenics, while never really having disappeared, is being publicly promoted in the UK and NZ – “not by latter-day Hitlers but by sober professors”:

    On the eve of the Paralympics, BBC Newsnight ran a segment called “Eugenics, Helping or Eradicating Disability?” The show began with the question “is it a noble aim to rid the world of mental and physical disability”? As if for the sake of completeness, the piece then described how “the most heinous crimes of the 20th century, the holocaust, the mass murder of the disabled, the enforced sterilisation of anyone considered inferior, all took place in the name of eugenics”.

    It continued: “Many of the Paralympians we’ll be celebrating in London have the same disabilities as those whose rights have been violated. But does this mean we should write off eugenics in its totality?… Should the prospect of designer babies be ignored just because of its associations with Nazism?”

[Image via; photo via ProLife NZ]

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...