In the newspaper of Cal State Long Beach, Jonathan Oyama has probably the worst editorial I've ever read which focuses on the writer's dislike of a display with images of aborted children. He claims the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform shouldn't be allowed to display these pictures because of "Supreme Court cases on freedom of speech rights" and then fails to cite a single case. He claims the pictures are from illegal abortions without evidence. He then shows he doesn't seem to know the meaning of the words "hypocritical" or "statistic."
If we're lucky, we might get to see more poorly researched and argued articles by Oyama in the future. He's a senior journalism major.
A waitress in the UK has won a lawsuit after her boss suggested she get an abortion and reduced her hours after she became pregnant.
She said he told her the baby had not really formed, that she would be fat and ugly like the women in the supermarket.
Wesley Smith notes the use of a new manufactured term for human cloning ("stem cell research using aborted human eggs") which I've never heard before.
The Catholic Key Blog has an editorial written by Cardinal Justin Rigali which strongly disagrees with a previous column by Doug Kmiec in which Kmiec claimed Obama's guidelines were "ethically sensitive" and in some parts "more strict" than Bush's regulations. From the column:
Here Kmiec applauds Obama for taking “off the table” the option of “reproductive cloning.” But that only means cloned human embryos will be created solely for stem cells and other research uses, and not be allowed to survive and be born. That cannot be called a sensitive or pro-life policy.
With all due respect to Kmiec, then, on this and other issues relating to the destruction of unborn human life, the federal government is not moving “in a noticeably more Catholic-friendly direction.” Nor is it moving in a human-friendly direction.