Friday, September 1, 2017

Pro-Life Feminist: “I Lose All My Friends When I Talk About Why I Am Against Abortion”

Pro-Life Feminist: “I Lose All My Friends When I Talk About Why I Am Against Abortion”

 OPINION   MICAIAH BILGER   AUG 31, 2017   |   11:58AM    WASHINGTON, DC
Rosemary Geraghty doesn’t fit into any neat little, socially-constructed box when it comes to politics or religion or feminism or anything else for that matter.
A student at the University of Pittsburgh, she described herself to The Pitt News as “a purple-haired, nose-ringed, queer, feminist atheist.”
She also is a pro-life human rights advocate who believes that every human life is unique and valuable.
A senior political science and communications double major at the University of Pittsburgh, Geraghty is a strong advocate on campus for the humane treatment of all human lives and of animals.
Here’s more from the report:
Geraghty sees her consistent views as just one way to take some of the hypocrisy out of casual politics. But that’s more of a fortunate side effect, because she truly believes in it. She also doesn’t feel that she has to reconcile her views on abortion with her feminism in any way — the two can simply coexist. ….
Maria Fenner, the vice president of Choose Life, describes Geraghty as open-minded — specifically citing Choose Life’s counter-protest of the pro-choice march at Pitt in the spring as an example of her level head and her ability to not force her beliefs onto people.
“She always tells us that we’re not here to change people’s minds, but to educate them about what we believe,” Fenner said.
More than many pro-life advocates, Geraghty has had the opportunity to advocate for human lives both locally and nationally. She has been interviewed by a number of national news outlets and liberal blogs about being pro-life and a feminist.
“Everyone likes me when I get to be like, ‘Pro-lifers aren’t really pro-life!’ and I get a lot of friends,” Geraghty said. “Then I start to talk about why I am also against abortion, and I lose all my friends.”
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures.
Though she has faced rejection, Geraghty does not seem ready to give up. Quite the opposite. She is the president of her university’s pro-life club, Choose Life at Pitt, and recently took on the role as the new media coordinator at Rehumanize International.
Formerly Life Matters Journal, Rehumanize is a young adult-led organization that promotes the consistent life ethic, which opposes the destruction of human lives at all stages by abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, war, capital punishment and more.
Rehumanize founder and executive director Aimee Murphy told the newspaper that Geraghty inspires her.
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen Rosemary shy away from a difficult conversation, whether it’s on abortion or war or torture or euthanasia,” Murphy said.
Like Geraghty and Murphy, many women have been reclaiming feminism as a movement that fights for the rights of unborn babies as well as women. Groups like Rehumanize, Feminists for Life, New Wave Feminists and others think, like the first wave feminists, that abortion hurts women as well as their unborn babies. They are working hard to take feminism back to its roots where both women and children are respected and valued in society.


at

Scientists Conduct Grisly Experiments Modifying the DNA of Human Embryos

Scientists Conduct Grisly Experiments Modifying the DNA of Human Embryos

 HOME POSTS   PAUL STARK   AUG 31, 2017   |   3:36PM    WASHINGTON, DC
Scientists in Oregon have successfully genetically modified human embryos, according to research published earlier this month. The researchers used a gene editing technique called CRISPR to repair a disease-causing mutation.
“In altering the DNA code of human embryos,” explains the MIT Technology Review, “the objective of scientists is to show that they can eradicate or correct genes that cause inherited disease, like the blood condition beta-thalassemia. The process is termed ‘germline engineering’ because any genetically modified child would then pass the changes on to subsequent generations via their own germ cells—the egg and sperm.”
Preventing disease is a noble goal. And gene editing technology has already been used in born human beings for therapeutic purposes. Genetic engineering of embryos, however, raises a number of ethical issues.
First, the research involves the creation and intentional destruction of human embryos. Human embryos are living members of our species (human beings) at the embryonic stage of their lives. Each one of us, indeed, was once an embryo.
The Oregon scientists produced more than 100 of these young humans solely in order to experiment on them. They were utilized to test gene editing methods that could possibly benefit other human beings in the future. Then they were killed.
These human beings were treated like disposable material. They were treated like things that we use rather than human beings whom we respect. That’s profoundly wrong.
The assumption of researchers engaged in embryo-destructive work is that some members of our species (like potential beneficiaries of the research) matter morally and deserve respect and compassion while other members of our species (the tiny human beings who are destroyed) don’t matter and may be used and discarded by the rest of us in any way we see fit.
But there’s no such thing as a disposable human being. We all matter.
Second, germline engineering is controversial in itself. One concern is safety. “These mutations could be passed down through the germline to future generations with unknown implications for everyone,” writes Dr. David Prentice of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. We don’t know the long-term risks of making such genetic modifications.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures.
Another concern is more fundamental. Genetic engineering could be used not only to prevent health problems, but to choose particular favored traits (e.g., eye color, athletic skill, intellectual ability). It could be used to create so-called “designer babies.”
This is a form of eugenics—an effort to produce “enhanced” or “superior” or more desirable human beings. Indeed, Oxford bioethicist Julian Savulescu (among others) argues that we have a moral obligation to eugenically engineer our children.
But eugenic thinking can undermine a society’s commitment to human equality and to the dignity of human beings who are weak, sick, disabled, or “imperfect.”
David Albert Jones, director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, summarizes these moral dangers of genetically engineering human embryos. “Instead of treating existing human beings in ways that respect their rights and do not pose excessive risks to them or to future generations,” he writes, “we are manufacturing new human beings for manipulation and quality control, and experimenting on them with the aim of forging greater eugenic control over human reproduction.”
Science is powerful. Research is important. But they must always respect the dignity and rights of human beings.
LifeNews.com Note: Paul Stark is a member of the staff of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, a statewide pro-life group.

at

U.S. Kills 85% of Unborn Babies Diagnosed With Down Syndrome. Why?

U.S. Kills 85% of Unborn Babies Diagnosed With Down Syndrome. Why?

 OPINION   JEANNE MANCINI   AUG 31, 2017   |   12:50PM    WASHINGTON, DC
Earlier this month, CBS News shocked the world with its report claiming that Iceland was on the verge of “eradicating” Down syndrome. Upon a closer look, it is clear that Iceland is not eliminating Down syndrome through positive preventive methods or therapeutic treatments. Rather, it is eliminating an entire population of people via abortion.
Originally discovered by French pediatrician Jerome Lejeune in 1959, Down syndrome affects an estimated 6 million people worldwide. Denmark boasts a 98 percent termination rate of babies who test positive for Down syndrome, followed by the United Kingdom at 90 percent, the United States at an estimated 85 percent and France at 77 percent.
In the United States, about 19 percent of pregnancies are terminated overall. So why are babies with Down syndrome so disproportionately targeted for abortion? For many, it’s about quality of life: Parents believe, sadly, that a family member with a disability or Down syndrome translates into an unfulfilled or bad life. Societal beliefs reflect this view: Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins once said it would be “immoral” to give birth to a child with Down syndrome if the parents had a choice, as though life with the disorder would be a terrible thing to inflict on a person.
Likewise, in CBS’s story about Iceland, one medical practitioner justified this practice by stating that she is working to “prevent suffering.” Many in the medical community share this same approach, viewing a positive Down syndrome test as a horrible fate, and delivering the diagnosis as such to the families. A number of years ago, a medical student shared with me that his professor told students that they had a “responsibility” to encourage parents to terminate babies who receive a Down syndrome prenatal diagnosis. Likewise, many parents have written about the pressure to abort their children once diagnosed, and medical scholars have called on physicians and other caregivers to radically alter their approach to Down syndrome. The pressure from the medical community to abort Down babies not only counters the purpose of medicine — healing and wholeness — but also is additionally discouragingly difficult for families receiving the news. Further, it suggests a failure of the medical community to consider all available scientific research.
In 2011, Brian Skotko, a Harvard-trained physician and researcher, published a groundbreaking survey, “Self-Perceptions from People With Down Syndrome.” His work revealed that people with Down syndrome have a very high level of satisfaction in their lives and are generally very happy people. Similarly, family members of people with Down syndrome also rank high in levels of personal fulfillment. So not only are people with Down syndrome happy, but they also bring a great deal of happiness to their friends and family members. Indeed, the survey found that 88 percent of siblings of children with Down syndrome feel that they are better people for having had their brothers and sisters; and other studies have found that children with Down syndrome have strong adaptive skills and that their parents tend to divorce less than the parents of children without Down syndrome.
“Bridget Jones” star Sally Phillips has a son with Down syndrome and shared her thoughts on “60 Minutes,” saying that we need to change the way we speak about Down syndrome.
“If you stop thinking of Down syndrome as a disease, then the way you treat mothers is entirely different,” Jones said. “You perhaps wouldn’t say, ‘I’m sorry.’ Breaking the news with the phrase ‘I’m sorry.’ There’s nothing to be sorry about. You’re lucky, actually.”
What parents really need during this sensitive time is support, encouragement and real, scientifically valid information. There are wonderful groups working to help make this a reality, like Jack’s Baskets, founded by Carissa Carroll and inspired by her Down son, Jack. The organization seeks to counter some of the negativity and celebrate children born with Down syndrome by congratulating the family with gifts, support and resources.
These are the types of stories CBS and other networks should be highlighting: ones that will help families find inspiration in celebrating the dignity and joy of their Down children and affirmation in knowing that every life is a precious gift, regardless of the obstacles it may face.
LifeNews Note: Jeanne Mancini is the president of March for Life.
at

New Liberal Film “The Misogynists” Labels Trump Voters “Misanthropic Sociopaths”

New Liberal Film “The Misogynists” Labels Trump Voters “Misanthropic Sociopaths”

 NATIONAL   CORRINE WEAVER   AUG 31, 2017   |   5:09PM    WASHINGTON, DC
The entertainment industry has made it clear: they really don’t like President Trump. After the hundreds of angry celebrities, anti-Trump songs, and anti-Trump television, finally Hollywood is ready to sell a movie about the election.
Deadline reported that in November, the film The Misogynists will be released, arguably the first film that specifically addresses Trump. According to Mike Fleming Jr., the plot is a “satirical dark comedy about two Trump supporters celebrating in a hotel room on election night.”
The two main characters are middle-aged men, estranged from their wives, who somehow end up with two prostitutes who are “having an existential crisis of their own.” Basically, the film paints Trump voters in the most unflattering light possible.
The film follows “an ensemble of characters” who “venture in and out of the room, challenging each others’ beliefs, questioning what it means to be an American.” Sounds deep and beyond the scope of a movie aimed at taking down Trump voters.
But its art, isn’t it? Director Onur Tukel admitted, “I’m fascinated by hypocrisy and the contradictions of living in a free society. Plus, I’ve always been drawn to misanthropic sociopaths.”
The director plans on unveiling his masterpiece at an unnamed film festival around the anniversary of Election Day.
LifeNews Note: Corinne Weaver writes for Newsbusters, where this originally appeared.


at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *