Hilary White

,

Ann Coulter dumped as ‘hateful,’ but pro-infanticide Peter Singer ok?: Jesuit university

Hilary White
Hilary White
Image

Updated: Nov. 19, 2012 at 2:02 PM EST to include a statement from Dr. Charles Camosy, the organizer of the panel discussion featuring Peter Singer, and to include more information about the panel.

NEW YORK, November 19, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Days after popular American conservative pundit Ann Coulter was disinvited from Fordham university amidst accusations that she is too “hateful”, the world’s most notorious promoter of infanticide, Dr. Peter Singer, was welcomed at a conference at the university, the Jesuit order’s premier university on the east coast.

Fordham hosted Dr. Singer as the main attraction at a one-day conference titled, “Conference with Peter Singer: Christians and Other Animals, Moving the Conversation Forward.” In addition to Singer, the panel discussion featured R.R. Reno, a Professor of Theological Ethics at Creighton University, and editor of First Things, David Clough, Professor of Theological Ethics and Department Chair, University of Chester, and Eric Meyer, Fordham Doctoral Candidate in Theology.

The event stirred controversy, coming days after the university’s Republican group canceled a scheduled appearance with Ann Coulter in response to a scathing letter from Fordham’s president, Fr. Joseph McShane. In that letter the priest had called Coulter “hateful and needlessly provocative,” and described her work as “aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.”

Fr. McShane had said that Coulter’s appearance would only barely be tolerated by the university for the sake of “academic freedom.” When the College Republican group responded to the criticism by rescinding Coulter’s invitation, Fr. McShane wrote in response, “Allow me to give credit where it is due: the leadership of the College Republicans acted quickly, took responsibility for their decisions, and expressed their regrets sincerely and eloquently.

“Most gratifying, I believe, is that they framed their decision in light of Fordham’s mission and values.”

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

In a post advertising the conference with Peter Singer, Fordham’s official blog described the Princeton philosopher as “most influential philosopher alive today” and “the intellectual heft behind the beginning of the animal rights movement in the 1970s.”

The moderator of the Singer conference, Dr. Charles Camosy, a Fordham theologian who describes himself as “a pro-life Christian ethicist,” defended his decision to invite Singer in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com, pointing out that the other members of the panel disagreed with Singer’s views.

“The conversation was fantastic, and a rich, prophetic Christian theology was on full display in a public setting in front of non-Christians in a beautiful and important way,” said Camosy.

Camosy has defended Singer in the past and invited him to lecture in his ethics classes. In an article titled, “Peter Singer is not the Antichrist,” Camosy compared Singer to the late Pope John Paul II. Camosy said he “likes” Singer personally. Though Singer is “pro-choice” on infanticide and “the numerous and complicated issues related to abortion,” and “attacks many of the vulnerable populations Christians are called to defend,” Camosy described him as “friendly and compassionate” and sounding “an awful lot like Pope John Paul II.”

“He is motivated by an admirable desire to respond to the suffering of human and non-human animals, and an equally admirable willingness to logically follow his arguments wherever they lead,” Camosy wrote. He quoted Pope Benedict XVI in his recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate to defend his collaborations with Singer, saying that Christians should engage in “fraternal collaboration” with non-believers. Camosy has written a book on Singer, “Peter Singer and Christian Ethics: Beyond Polarization,” which he says shows “that the disagreements between us are remarkably narrow”.

The Cardinal Newman Society, a Catholic student group that monitors the adherence to Catholic doctrine of the Church’s universities in the U.S., commented that Pope Benedict has never advocated “hosting an advocate of heinous acts on a Catholic campus for a conference seeming to celebrate his work.”

“There is also something quite disturbing about Camosy inviting a dangerous provocateur into the classroom to prey on students who may be unprepared for such dialogue. Better to engage Singer’s ideas with careful and moderated analysis in the light of Truth, and never a hint of respect for what Singer espouses,” the watchdog group said.

Camosy, however, said that pro-lifers should “look at the history of Christians engaging with those that think differently than we do,” citing Thomas Aquinas’ use of Aristotle, who Camosy pointed out also supported infanticide.  “To suggest that Christians should not support these kinds of academic discussions is precisely the kind of anti-intellectualism which keeps so many good people from taking the pro-life movement seriously, and this does serious damage to our ability to protect vulnerable prenatal (and postnatal) persons in our culture,” he said.

Camosy also said that “despite being the world’s most important expert on animal ethics, [Singer] was not paid by Fordham nor were his views promoted.”

In the pro-life world Singer is notorious for espousing some of the most extreme anti-life positions anywhere in academia. He is most famous for his rejection of the notion of inherent dignity, and therefore the personhood, of all human beings, and his promotion of abortion and infanticide at parents’ discretion and euthanasia of disabled people. His appearances in Europe are often interrupted by protests from disability rights groups.

His Preference Utilitarianism holds that the right to life is tied to a human being’s capacity to hold preferences, to experience pain and enjoy pleasure. He summarised his outlook in an editorial in The Scotsman, saying, “Membership of the species Homo sapiens is not enough to confer a right to life.”

As Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University, Singer has positioned himself as the leading light in modern secularist bioethics and was described by the New York Times as the “greatest living philosopher”. In 2004 he was recognized as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies, and in June 2012 was named a Companion of the Order of Australia for his services to philosophy and bioethics.

He strongly advocates euthanasia, particularly for people with dementia, and sterilizing most of the human race to save the environment. He has said that some great apes are more “persons” than human infants, believes that animals can give consent to having sex with humans, and complains that Christianity “discriminates” against animals. The media’s gentle handling of Singer is evidenced by the fact that despite his insistence that it is acceptable to murder infants, he is best known as the founder of the “animal rights” movement and for his book Animal Liberation which is the founding document for extremist animal rights groups like PETA.

The Cardinal Newman society noted in June this year that Singer offered a solution to the conflict over Catholic universities being forced to provide contraceptives for employees. He argued that President Obama’s contraceptive mandate “does not prevent Catholics from practicing their religion,” and suggested that Catholics simply close their universities. Catholicism, he said, “does not oblige its adherents to run hospitals and universities.”

Fordham was founded in the 1900s and was given over to the Jesuit order. It is now a private university governed by a lay board of trustees that describes it as being “in the Jesuit tradition.”

Follow us on Twitter:

To contact Fr. McShane with concerns:
Joseph M. McShane, S.J.,
President, Fordham University
Room 107, Administration Building
Rose Hill Campus
441 E. Fordham Road
Bronx, NY 10458

(718) 817-3000
President@fordham.edu


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

,

Arguments don’t have genitals

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

“As soon as he grows his own uterus, he can have an opinion.”

That was a comment left on The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s Facebook page by a woman who presumably opposes men speaking out against misogyny, domestic abuse, rape culture, and female genital mutilation as well. Apparently, you see, male genitals disqualify people from speaking out on various human rights issues deemed by women who define themselves by their uteruses while protesting angrily against being defined by their uteruses as “women’s issues.”

Which abortion isn’t, by the way. It’s a human rights issue.

To break it down really simply for our confused “feminist” friends: Human beings have human rights. Human rights begin when the human being begins, or we are simply choosing some random and arbitrary point at which human beings get their human rights. If we do not grant human rights to all human beings, inevitably some sub-set of human beings gets denied protection by another group with conflicting interests. In this case, of course, it is the abortion crowd, who want to be able to kill pre-born children in the womb whenever they want, for any reason they want.

Science tells us when human life begins. Pro-abortion dogma is at worst a cynical manoeuvre to sacrifice the lives of pre-born human beings for self-interest, and at best an outdated view that collapsed feebly under the weight of new discoveries in science and embryology. But the abortion cabal wants to preserve their bloody status quo at all costs, and so they make ludicrous claims about needing a uterus to qualify for a discussion on science and human rights.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In fact, feminists love it when men speak up on abortion, as long as we’re reading from their script, which is why the carnivorous feminists have such a support system among the Deadbeat Dads for Dead Babies set and the No Strings Attached Club.

Male abortion activists have even begun to complain about “forced fatherhood,” a new cultural injustice in which they are expected to bear some responsibility for fathering children with women they didn’t love enough to want to father children with, but did appreciate enough to use for sex. Casual fluid swaps, they whine, should not result in custody hearings.

This is not to mention a genuine social tragedy that has men forcing or pressuring women to have abortions or abandoning them when they discover that the woman is, indeed, pregnant.

Or the fact that abortion has assisted pimps, rapists, and misogynists in continuing the crimes of sex trafficking, sexual abuse, and sex-selection abortion.

And coming against these disgusting trends are thousands of men in the pro-life movement who believe that shared humanity means shared responsibility, and that when the weak and vulnerable are robbed of their rights, we have to stand up and speak out.

We are not at all convinced by the feminist argument that people should think with their reproductive organs or genitals. We think that the number of people currently doing that has perhaps contributed to the problems we face. And we refuse to be told that protecting the human rights of all human beings is “none of our business” and “outside of our interests.”

Arguments don’t have genitals, feminists. It’s a stupid argument trying to protect a bloody ideology.

Reprinted with permission from CCBR.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Rachel Daly

,

Gvmt strikes UK Catholic school admission policy that prefers Mass attendees

Rachel Daly
By Rachel Daly

St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School in Epsom, England, was ordered to change its admissions policy after it was ruled discriminatory by the nation's Office of Schools Adjudicator, according to Your Local Guardian. St. Joseph's reportedly had been granting preferred acceptance to students whose families attended Mass at the affiliated church.

St. Joseph’s School is for students from age 4 to 11 and describes itself as “enjoy[ing] a high level of academic success.” The school furthermore places high priority on its Catholic identity, affirming on its homepage that “We place prayer and worship at the center of everything we do.”

The school states in its current admissions policy that it was "set up primarily to serve the Catholic community in St Joseph’s Parish" and that when the applicant pool exceeds 60 students, its criteria for prioritizing students includes "the strength of evidence of practice of the faith as demonstrated by the level of the family's Mass attendance on Sundays." 

Opponents of this policy reportedly argue that since donations are asked for at Mass, it could allow donation amounts to influence acceptance, and that forcing non-accepted local students to seek education elsewhere imposes a financial burden upon their families. 

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

As Your Local Guardian reports, the adjudicators dismissed claims that donation amounts were affecting school acceptance, given that it is impossible to track donations. Nonetheless, the adjudicators maintained that "discrimination ... potentially arises from requiring attendance at the church rather than residency in the parish."

The Office of Schools Adjudicators, according to its website, is appointed by the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State of Education, to perform such functions as mediating disputes over school acceptances. The Office's ruling on St. Joseph's will require the school to release a revised admissions policy, which is expected in the next few days.

Reprinted with permission from the Cardinal Newman Society.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Carolyn Moynihan

African women at risk of HIV, hostages to birth control

Carolyn Moynihan
By Carolyn Moynihan

Which should be the priority for a health organisation: preventing an incurable disease, or preventing a natural function that might have adverse physical consequences?

Preventing the disease, you would think. But the World Health Organisation would rather expose African women to HIV-AIDS than withdraw its support from a suspect method of birth control, arguing that childbirth is also risky in Africa. Riskier, apparently, than the said contraceptive. And at least one of WHO’s major partners agrees.

This is one of the stories you will not have read in coverage of the International AIDS Conference held in Melbourne last week, despite the fact that WHO made an announcement about it during the conference and the findings of a highly relevant study were presented there.

The story is this: there is increasing evidence that the method of contraception preferred by family planning organisations working in Africa (and elsewhere) facilitates the transmission of HIV. The method is the progesterone injection in the form of either DMPA (Depo Provera, the most common) or NET-En (Noristerat).

Millions of women in sub-Saharan Africa receive the injection every three months. The method overcomes problems of access. It can be given by nurses or health workers. A wife need not bother her husband for any special consideration; the teenage girl need not remember to take a pill.

But for 30 years evidence has been accumulating that, for all its “effectiveness” in controlling the number of births, the jab may also be very effective in increasing the number of people with HIV.

Three years ago at another AIDS conference in Rome, researchers who had analysed data from a number of previous studies delivered the disturbing news that injectables at least doubled the risk of infection with HIV for women and their male partners.

That study had its weaknesses but one of the experts present in Rome, Charles Morrison of FHI 360 (formerly Family Health International, a family planning organisation that also works in AIDS prevention), considered it a “good study” and subsequently led another meta-analysis that addressed some of the issues with previous research.

Last week at the Melbourne conference he presented the results. His team had re-analysed raw data on the contraceptive use of more than 37,000 women in 18 prospective observational studies. Of these women, 28 percent reported using DMPA, 8 percent NET-En, 19 percent a combined oral contraceptive pill, and 43 percent no form of hormonal contraception. A total of 1830 women had acquired HIV while in a study.

The analysis showed that both injectables raised the risk of infection by 50 percent:

Compared to non-users [of any hormonal contraceptive], women using DMPA had an elevated risk of infection (hazard ratio 1.56, 95% CI 1.31-1.86), as did women using NET-En (1.51, 95% CI 1.21-1.90). There was no increased risk for women using oral contraceptives.

Similarly, comparing women using injections with those using oral contraceptives, there was an elevated risk associated with DMPA (1.43, 95% CI 1.23-1.67) and NET-En (1.30, 95% CI 0.99-1.71).

Morrison also noted:

The results were consistent in several subgroup and sensitivity analyses. However, when only studies which were judged to be methodologically more reliable were included, the increased risk appeared smaller.

Morrison acknowledged that observational studies such as the FHI analysis depended on have their limitations. He is looking for funding to conduct a randomised controlled study – something that, after 30 years of suspicions and evidence, still has not been done.

So what is his advice to the birth control industry? Stop using this stuff in regions with a high prevalence of HIV until we are sure that we are not feeding an epidemic?

No.

One reason is that FHI is at least as interested in contraception as it is in HIV prevention. Though its website reflects a broad range of development activities, its core business is integrating birth control programmes with HIV prevention. The WHO – one of its partners -- describes the US based, 83 percent US government funded non-profit as “a global health and development organization working on family planning, reproductive health and HIV/AIDS.”

Another reason is that FHI 360 has a vital stake in precisely the kind of contraceptives that are under suspicion. Its annual report refers to:

Our trailblazing work in contraceptive research and development continues, as we develop and introduce high-quality and affordable long-acting contraceptives for women in low-income countries. Research is under way to develop a new biodegradable contraceptive implant that would eliminate the need for removal services. We are also working with partners to develop an injectable contraceptive that would last for up to six months. Currently available injectables require reinjections monthly or quarterly, which can be challenging where health services are limited.

That project is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and USAID.

So Morrison did not argue in Melbourne for restrictions on the use of injectables, and neither did the WHO, whose representative at the conference outlined the UN body’s new guidelines on contraception and HIV. Mary Lyn Gaffield said a review of studies up to – but not including Morrison’s – did not warrant a change to WHO’s policy that DMPA and NET-En should be available, without restriction, in areas of high HIV prevalence.

The most WHO will advise is that women should be informed of the risk:

“Women at high risk of HIV infection should be informed that progestogen-only injectables may or may not increase their risk of HIV acquisition. Women and couples at high risk of HIV acquisition considering progestogen-only injectables should also be informed about and have access to HIV preventive measures, including male and female condoms.”

Condoms? How do they defend such cynicism? By equating the risk of HIV with the risks of motherhood – complications of pregnancy or childbirth, maternal death and the effect on infants... And yet motherhood remains risky precisely because 90 percent of the world’s effort is going into contraception!

Seven years ago a meeting of technical experts convened by WHO to study the injectables-HIV link showed the reproductive health establishment worried about that issue, to be sure, but also concerned that funding was flowing disproportionately to HIV-AIDS programmes, setting back the cause of birth control. The integration of family planning and HIV prevention spearheaded by FHI 360 looks like they have found an answer to that problem.

Whether African women are any better off is very doubtful. They remain pawns in a game that is, above all, about controlling their fertility. They and their partners are encouraged to take risks with their health, if not their lives, while researchers scout for funds to do the definitive study.

FHI had an income of $674 million last year, most of it from the US government. Couldn’t it give Charles Morrison the money to do his research today?

Reprinted with permission from Mercatornet.com.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook