Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Life Links 4/22/09

A local Memphis television station has a story on Live Action catching a Memphis-based Planned Parenthood employee helping to cover up statutory rape.
Planned Parenthood in Memphis refused to comment on-camera on the tape.

In a statement, a spokeswoman called the allegation "serious."

While the spokeswoman said the accuracy of the tape hasn't been verified, she says Planned Parenthood has taken swift action, and is conducting additional staff training this week.

Christopher Orr (someone who favors legal abortion) shoots down the pro-choice argument that prolifers can't praise people for choosing life because they think abortion should be illegal.
I'm sympathetic to the intent of this argument, but ultimately I don't think it holds water. There are, after all, plenty of situations in which we applaud someone for doing one thing, even as we believe the alternative should be unacceptable or even illegal.

Imagine someone who is genuinely hungry, or even has a hungry family, who finds himself walking past an unattended fruit stand. Just because we might applaud his decision not to steal an apple, it doesn't mean we think theft should be a legal option.

Wesley Smith discusses how British advocates for experimenting on human embryos were able to turn the tide to get what they wanted.
But the point wasn't to provide the politicians and the public with accurate science from which to engage in rational analysis. It was to skew the politics and stack the deck in order to achieve a desired outcome. A pseudo scientific term was coined to carry the weight of this junk biology--and the "pre embryo" entered the lexicon.

That gave parliamentarians who wanted to authorize the research an excuse to do so. Human embryos were, suddenly, no longer human.

One would think after the whole Raelian cloning scam, the mainstream media would have learned their lesson regarding quacks who've claimed to have created cloned human embryos and implanted them in women's wombs. If reporting on one of these quacks, they would provide some expert refuting the likelihood of the quack's claims. Guess not.

No comments:

Post a Comment