A pair of philosophers, writing in a bioethics journal, are advancing the argument that if we’re going to say that infanticide—the killing of innocent newborns—is wrong, then all the arguments against apply equally to abortion.Read more
Canada has a problem. The country legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide last year, but can’t find enough doctors willing to kill their patients, so now they’re thinking of paying a premium to those who will.
According to Thomas Lipton in American Thinker: “The slippery slope is real. Once the state gets in the business of killing off its citizens via euthanasia, the brutal logic of economics works its way through the system. In Canada, which legalized euthanasia just over a year ago, one of the most important forums for political discussion, Maclean's Magazine, published an article arguing that doctors ought to be paid a premium for euthanizing terminal patients.”
In our presentations on doctor-prescribed suicide at MCFL we try not to lean heavily on the slippery slope or foreign happenings, but this is bizarre. And just wait until you read the rationale for paying these doctors!
As you may know, the Massachusetts Alliance to Stop Public Funding of Abortionwill be gathering signatures this fall to put an amendment to the state constitution on the 2018 ballot that would stop the use of taxpayer funds for abortion. They have done a great job setting up locations around the state to train people in signature gathering for the petition. Even if you are experienced at signature gathering from previous ballot referenda, we are sure you will learn from these sessions.Read more
By Nancy Valko
Arthur Caplan, PhD is an influential ethicist who recently wrote a Medscape (password protected) article titled “Don’t Tell John McCain to Fight his Cancer” after the news broke about Sen. McCain’s brain cancer and many of his colleagues and others encouraged him to fight hard against his cancer.Read more
"I’m a deeply flawed human being, not too different from most. I became pregnant. I had a child. That’s really all there is to it." That is what Jennifer Christie says about herself after telling the story of a brutal rape that resulted in the birth of her son. The rapist killed his other victims and was eventually killed by the brother of one of them. Jennifer talks about forgiveness and loving her son. It is a beautiful article.
By Domenico Bettinelli, MCFL Director of Community Engagement
CRISPR is an acronym for a new medical technology that allows scientists to edit human DNA before birth, with the potential to cure untold numbers of genetic abnormalities that lead to ailments and disease. The process itself is not objectionable in theory because it involves operating on the unborn child without harming them. (For a more extensive exploration of the power and promise of CRISPR, see this article from our member magazine last year.)
However, while the eventual therapeutic application of the technology is not a concern for pro-lifers at this time, the research in developing it could be.
Scientists have now, for the first time in the US, edited the DNA of actual embryonic unborn children using CRISPR, but the unborn children were aborted after they were done.
The research — which has yet to be published — was led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health and Science University. It involved editing a “large number” of viable embryos and effectively correcting disease-causing genes, according to MIT Technology Review. (It’s unclear exactly how many embryos were edited, or which genes.) The embryos were developed for only a few days and were not implanted. Without implantation, embryos cannot develop into babies.
This is unacceptable. We cannot let the ends justify the means. We cannot and should not accept the creation and death of one set of human beings in order to develop medical treatments for others. The linked article debates the ethical concerns of editing human DNA for how it can affect humanity in the future, but the present concern is how the use and disposal of human beings in research is affecting our humanity now.
The story of poor, little Charlie Gard has many facets, but one that should concern everyone is the expansion of a democratically elected government into a superstate that will now decide whose life is worth living. Matt McDonald writes at the New Boston Post that doctors and judges in the UK now have precedent which says they can decide that it’s in a person’s best interest to be deprived of their life.
The elderly female judge on the United Kingdom Supreme Court should have been wearing a black cap as she read her court’s decision explaining that a British statute called The Children’s Act of 1989 provided that “the child’s bests interests shall be a primary consideration” and that those interests were best decided, not by his parents, but by a “guardian” (appointed by the government), the doctors (paid by the government health service), and the trial court judge (appointed by the government).
“So parents are not entitled to insist on treatment by anyone which is not in the child’s best interests,” the hanging judge said.
We cannot feel so secure here in Massachusetts against this totalitarianism. We don’t need to have legalized doctor-prescribed suicide for doctors and judges to be able to decide who gets medical care and who doesn’t. But if it becomes legal, it will only become easier for them.
By Anne Fox, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Abandonment and coercion. Those are the two words we hear from women who have had abortions. Here is another story featuring those words and telling us how abortion is horrible for a woman. It is very well-written and makes the sadness so real.
It seemed to be a foregone conclusion that I would have an abortion—everyone in whom I confided my situation presumed that’s what I would do. Not a single person asked me if I wanted my baby, or suggested adoption as an alternative. They spoke about “the abortion” as if it were a reality already in existence, a decision already made: When are you getting the abortion? I bet you can’t wait to have the abortion. Don’t worry, you’ll feel better after the abortion.
By Nancy Valko
Yesterday (as this is written), we learned that Baby Charlie Gard is expected to die soon as his heartbroken parents have decided to remove his life support because a US doctor had told them it was now too late to give Charlie nucleoside therapy. According to a BBC article, “US neurologist Dr Michio Hirano had said he was no longer willing to offer the baby experimental therapy after he saw the results of a new MRI scan last week.” Baby Charlie’s parents are now asking the court to allow them to take Charlie home to die.
We have learned much from Baby Charlie’s tragedy, not only about the perils of government deciding who should live and who should die, but also about the love and commitment of his dedicated parents and the importance of the worldwide support they received.
Now we know there is more hope for babies born with conditions like Baby Charlie’s because of the publicity and probably more parents will try to find alternatives when they are given a poor or fatal prognosis.
Here are two cases where the parents did just that and saved their children.Read more