sanctity of life

Remember the promises? No government funds for abortions.

Source: gop.gov

We must stop this immoral offense against human life and against American taxpayers.

Washington, DC – U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, released the following statement today in response to the Obama Administration spending $160 million on a “high risk” insurance program that will pay for abortions:

It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life by abortion. It is also reprehensible to take taxpayer dollars from millions of pro-life Americans and use them to pay for abortions.

President Obama promised the American people that his health care law would not allow federal funding of abortion. But according to an investigation by the National Right to Life Committee, this allocation for Pennsylvania’s high risk pool will break the president’s promise by using taxpayer dollars to subsidize coverage of nearly any kind of abortion.

We must stop this immoral offense against human life and against American taxpayers. Congress should act quickly on critical legislation by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) to stop the administration from using ObamaCare to fund abortions. The best long-term solution, and the one that I remain committed to, is the total repeal of ObamaCare.

From First Thoughts by Wesley J. Smith:

Peter Singer Sympathetic to Human Extinction as Way of Avoiding Suffering

Wesley J. Smith

Peter Singer blogs at the New York Times about a new book (Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence, by David Benetar) that apparently advocates human extinction as a way of preventing human suffering. Singer doesn’t agree, but is clearly sympathetic. From Singer’s post:

I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?

We have to “justify” continuing the species? Good grief. Under the influence of anti-human advocates like Peter Singer, we have gone in the West from seeking to “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity,” to seriously questioning whether there should be any posterity at all. This is not healthy. But it is the natural consequence of rejecting human exceptionalism.

If you are interested, I have a more detailed analysis over at Secondhand Smoke.