"All of our children were raised in the Episcopal Church. Some [places] were fairly conservative but my wife and I thought the Episcopal Church advocated a position that we didn't endorse, so we left. And our children did not stay in the Episcopal Church either."--Texas Representative Ron Paul (Oct. 2011 Christianity Today interview)
Thinking about ethics and current events (Began 1 April 2008)
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
More Euthanasia, Assisted-Suicide Propaganda
Margaret Somerville (Reprinted from here.)
The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision Making recently released its Report to much media attention. The parts of that report we can all agree on, for instance, the need for much better access to palliative care and pain management for terminally ill patients, was not the media’s focus. The panel’s recommendation that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) should be legalized was.
It has generated many calls for a national debate in Canada on these latter issues – mainly, I would guess, if not entirely, from people advocating the legalization of euthanasia. In entering such a debate and deciding whether they agree with this recommendation, it’s important for Canadians to understand the weaknesses of the Report.
The Panel’s mandate included the following direction: “The public would… benefit greatly from having a careful, balanced review of various pros and cons of decriminalization of physician-assisted death from well-reasoned ethical and legal standpoints.” The Report comes nowhere near fulfilling this mandate. It’s a pro-euthanasia manifesto – to paraphrase an advocate for disabled people speaking in another context, it’s “thinly veiled euthanasia and assisted suicide propaganda disguised as an expert report”.
This is not surprising in view of who the authors are. Many are well-known pro-euthanasia advocates and, as the Report is unanimous, one can assume all agree with this stance. The people I know whom the Panel lists as consulting to them are, likewise, pro-euthanasia -- three of them world-leading advocates.
It’s important to understand this is not a Report of the Royal Society of Canada, as many have mistakenly assumed, as that gives it an unmerited credibility. It’s a Report of an expert panel (only one member of which is a fellow of the Royal Society) set up by the Royal Society. The fairness and wisdom of the Royal Society’s choice of panel members must, however, be questioned.
The Report is very far from being a “balanced review” or adequately comprehensive. The arguments against the legalization of euthanasia and PAS are almost entirely absent. Issues are considered almost entirely at the level of the individual. There is almost no discussion of the impact of legalizing euthanasia and PAS at the institutional level -- in particular, the impact on healthcare institutions and professions, and the law – or at the societal level, in particular, on important shared values, such as respect for life. In fact, this value is not discussed, an extraordinary omission considering the topic of the report.
Discussion of abuses is deficient and selective
The discussion of the practices in jurisdictions that have legalized or allow euthanasia and assisted-suicide are seriously deficient and very selective so as to minimize the Report’s coverage of abuses, expansions of justifications for the practices, and other problems or controversies.
For example, the Report indicates there has been one case of the use of euthanasia on disabled babies in the Netherlands. This is probably correct in the short time since the Groningen protocol allowing such euthanasia was formally accepted. But, prior to that, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine documents 22 cases of babies with spina bifida being euthanized, which is not mentioned. Such “pro-euthanasia presentations” of the facts are concerning and misleading. Likewise, the availability in the Netherlands of euthanasia for children is not mentioned. The combination of euthanasia and donation of organs for transplant in Belgium and the recent case in Flanders of “joint euthanasia” of a terminally ill man and his healthy wife are ignored. And a survey of Belgian physicians who had carried out euthanasia, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which showed 32 percent of those physicians had carried out euthanasia without the patient’s request or consent is never mentioned.
The system set up under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act is presented as largely problem-free. The literature describing problems, for instance, articles and book chapters by renowned pain specialist and head of palliative care at Memorial Sloane Kettering, Dr Kathleen Foley, and Dr Herbert Hendin, a New York psychiatrist specializing in suicide prevention, is likewise totally ignored.
And although Canadian psychiatrist Dr Harvey Max Chochinov’s research is referenced, his ground-breaking work in the psychiatry of dying people, what helps them and what they want, is not discussed.
Through the lens of individual autonomy
The authors make an assumption that individual autonomy, implemented through “informed choice”, is always the prevailing value and construct their case for euthanasia and PAS from there. They do not consider that for many people some other value might prevail – for example, respect for human life which requires that we don’t kill each other, except when unavoidable to save life -- and what line of argument and decision outcomes that would result in.
In short, the authors have adopted a basic assumption, from which, as they state, everything else they accept and recommend flows, without adequately justifying doing so and not even mentioning the possible alternatives.
The essential difference between the pro and anti euthanasia positions is that the former gives priority to individual autonomy over respect for life, the latter does the opposite. We should keep in mind, here, that we are not just talking about the value of respect for each individual human life, important as that is, but also, respect for human life in general. The authors refer to the Charter as the primary source of our shared values: Apart from any other claims on behalf of the value of respect for life, it is one of the values enshrined in the Charter.
There is a strong emphasis in the Report on the burden and healthcare costs of an aging population and the Report gives the impression that euthanasia and PAS will help to resolve this “problem”. The authors note that euthanizing people “in advanced stages of dementia” will be an issue to be addressed in the future. In other words, they don’t reject the possibility that this might be acceptable.
The Report doesn’t mention survey results, such as those from an Environics poll, which last year (2010) asked over 2000 Canadians what the government priority should be - legalizing euthanasia or improving end-of-life care, or both. Seventy-one percent said improving end-of-life care and 19 percent said legalizing euthanasia, and 5 percent said both (the remainder were Did not know/Neither).
What about elder abuse?
Because the Report seems to have a special focus on aging, I note that the Environics polls also showed Canadians are very concerned about elder abuse if euthanasia or PAS is legalized. The 2011 poll expressly asked about "elder abuse" and 76 percent of respondents said they were concerned about it, if euthanasia were legalized. The 2010 poll did not expressly ask about "elder abuse", but did ask a question where 78 percent of respondents said they were concerned that elderly persons (disabled and sick persons too) would be euthanized without consent. To another 2010 question, 63 percent said they were concerned elderly persons could be pressured to accept euthanasia in order to reduce health care costs.
The authors recognize their position involves an inconsistency in that they champion individual autonomy as the prevailing value, but clearly will place limits on its exercise and not recognize the validity of the choice to die of all autonomous, competent adults.
But, if individual autonomy trumps all other considerations, then why is there a need for any other justification for euthanasia? Simply wanting to be dead and consenting to it should be sufficient: “Over 70 and tired of life”, as proposed in The Netherlands, would suffice. And why, even, does the person need to be “over 70”? What about the broken hearted 18-year-old whose first love has abandoned her; why can’t she exercise her autonomy to have assistance committing suicide?
And if there’s a right to commit suicide, then there is a duty not to interfere with people exercising that right. How then can we justify treating people brought to an emergency room who have attempted suicide?
The usual “confusions” used to promote the case for euthanasia are all present in the Report: equating all acts and omissions; arguing there is no difference between killing and allowing to die; conflating intention and motive in relation to desired and unwanted consequences of pain relief treatment; and so on. The opposite arguments are not presented. And the fact that courts and others rely on these distinctions daily in making legal and ethical decisions is ignored.
The section on dignity, which the authors recognize is a prominent concept in the euthanasia debate, is especially biased to the pro-euthanasia arguments and inadequate. In particular, a 2008 major and very comprehensive research report on the concept by the US President’s Commission on Bioethics is not even mentioned.
The above criticisms are not comprehensive, many more could be articulated. Fortunately, in my view, there is a wealth of grounds on which the Report can be easily dismissed.
Margaret Somerville is founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University.
The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision Making recently released its Report to much media attention. The parts of that report we can all agree on, for instance, the need for much better access to palliative care and pain management for terminally ill patients, was not the media’s focus. The panel’s recommendation that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) should be legalized was.
It has generated many calls for a national debate in Canada on these latter issues – mainly, I would guess, if not entirely, from people advocating the legalization of euthanasia. In entering such a debate and deciding whether they agree with this recommendation, it’s important for Canadians to understand the weaknesses of the Report.
The Panel’s mandate included the following direction: “The public would… benefit greatly from having a careful, balanced review of various pros and cons of decriminalization of physician-assisted death from well-reasoned ethical and legal standpoints.” The Report comes nowhere near fulfilling this mandate. It’s a pro-euthanasia manifesto – to paraphrase an advocate for disabled people speaking in another context, it’s “thinly veiled euthanasia and assisted suicide propaganda disguised as an expert report”.
This is not surprising in view of who the authors are. Many are well-known pro-euthanasia advocates and, as the Report is unanimous, one can assume all agree with this stance. The people I know whom the Panel lists as consulting to them are, likewise, pro-euthanasia -- three of them world-leading advocates.
It’s important to understand this is not a Report of the Royal Society of Canada, as many have mistakenly assumed, as that gives it an unmerited credibility. It’s a Report of an expert panel (only one member of which is a fellow of the Royal Society) set up by the Royal Society. The fairness and wisdom of the Royal Society’s choice of panel members must, however, be questioned.
The Report is very far from being a “balanced review” or adequately comprehensive. The arguments against the legalization of euthanasia and PAS are almost entirely absent. Issues are considered almost entirely at the level of the individual. There is almost no discussion of the impact of legalizing euthanasia and PAS at the institutional level -- in particular, the impact on healthcare institutions and professions, and the law – or at the societal level, in particular, on important shared values, such as respect for life. In fact, this value is not discussed, an extraordinary omission considering the topic of the report.
Discussion of abuses is deficient and selective
The discussion of the practices in jurisdictions that have legalized or allow euthanasia and assisted-suicide are seriously deficient and very selective so as to minimize the Report’s coverage of abuses, expansions of justifications for the practices, and other problems or controversies.
For example, the Report indicates there has been one case of the use of euthanasia on disabled babies in the Netherlands. This is probably correct in the short time since the Groningen protocol allowing such euthanasia was formally accepted. But, prior to that, an article in the New England Journal of Medicine documents 22 cases of babies with spina bifida being euthanized, which is not mentioned. Such “pro-euthanasia presentations” of the facts are concerning and misleading. Likewise, the availability in the Netherlands of euthanasia for children is not mentioned. The combination of euthanasia and donation of organs for transplant in Belgium and the recent case in Flanders of “joint euthanasia” of a terminally ill man and his healthy wife are ignored. And a survey of Belgian physicians who had carried out euthanasia, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which showed 32 percent of those physicians had carried out euthanasia without the patient’s request or consent is never mentioned.
The system set up under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act is presented as largely problem-free. The literature describing problems, for instance, articles and book chapters by renowned pain specialist and head of palliative care at Memorial Sloane Kettering, Dr Kathleen Foley, and Dr Herbert Hendin, a New York psychiatrist specializing in suicide prevention, is likewise totally ignored.
And although Canadian psychiatrist Dr Harvey Max Chochinov’s research is referenced, his ground-breaking work in the psychiatry of dying people, what helps them and what they want, is not discussed.
Through the lens of individual autonomy
The authors make an assumption that individual autonomy, implemented through “informed choice”, is always the prevailing value and construct their case for euthanasia and PAS from there. They do not consider that for many people some other value might prevail – for example, respect for human life which requires that we don’t kill each other, except when unavoidable to save life -- and what line of argument and decision outcomes that would result in.
In short, the authors have adopted a basic assumption, from which, as they state, everything else they accept and recommend flows, without adequately justifying doing so and not even mentioning the possible alternatives.
The essential difference between the pro and anti euthanasia positions is that the former gives priority to individual autonomy over respect for life, the latter does the opposite. We should keep in mind, here, that we are not just talking about the value of respect for each individual human life, important as that is, but also, respect for human life in general. The authors refer to the Charter as the primary source of our shared values: Apart from any other claims on behalf of the value of respect for life, it is one of the values enshrined in the Charter.
There is a strong emphasis in the Report on the burden and healthcare costs of an aging population and the Report gives the impression that euthanasia and PAS will help to resolve this “problem”. The authors note that euthanizing people “in advanced stages of dementia” will be an issue to be addressed in the future. In other words, they don’t reject the possibility that this might be acceptable.
The Report doesn’t mention survey results, such as those from an Environics poll, which last year (2010) asked over 2000 Canadians what the government priority should be - legalizing euthanasia or improving end-of-life care, or both. Seventy-one percent said improving end-of-life care and 19 percent said legalizing euthanasia, and 5 percent said both (the remainder were Did not know/Neither).
What about elder abuse?
Because the Report seems to have a special focus on aging, I note that the Environics polls also showed Canadians are very concerned about elder abuse if euthanasia or PAS is legalized. The 2011 poll expressly asked about "elder abuse" and 76 percent of respondents said they were concerned about it, if euthanasia were legalized. The 2010 poll did not expressly ask about "elder abuse", but did ask a question where 78 percent of respondents said they were concerned that elderly persons (disabled and sick persons too) would be euthanized without consent. To another 2010 question, 63 percent said they were concerned elderly persons could be pressured to accept euthanasia in order to reduce health care costs.
The authors recognize their position involves an inconsistency in that they champion individual autonomy as the prevailing value, but clearly will place limits on its exercise and not recognize the validity of the choice to die of all autonomous, competent adults.
But, if individual autonomy trumps all other considerations, then why is there a need for any other justification for euthanasia? Simply wanting to be dead and consenting to it should be sufficient: “Over 70 and tired of life”, as proposed in The Netherlands, would suffice. And why, even, does the person need to be “over 70”? What about the broken hearted 18-year-old whose first love has abandoned her; why can’t she exercise her autonomy to have assistance committing suicide?
And if there’s a right to commit suicide, then there is a duty not to interfere with people exercising that right. How then can we justify treating people brought to an emergency room who have attempted suicide?
The usual “confusions” used to promote the case for euthanasia are all present in the Report: equating all acts and omissions; arguing there is no difference between killing and allowing to die; conflating intention and motive in relation to desired and unwanted consequences of pain relief treatment; and so on. The opposite arguments are not presented. And the fact that courts and others rely on these distinctions daily in making legal and ethical decisions is ignored.
The section on dignity, which the authors recognize is a prominent concept in the euthanasia debate, is especially biased to the pro-euthanasia arguments and inadequate. In particular, a 2008 major and very comprehensive research report on the concept by the US President’s Commission on Bioethics is not even mentioned.
The above criticisms are not comprehensive, many more could be articulated. Fortunately, in my view, there is a wealth of grounds on which the Report can be easily dismissed.
Margaret Somerville is founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Israel Releases 550 Palestinians
Israel has released 550 Palestinian prisoners in the second stage of a deal with Hamas that brought home one Israeli soldier after five years of captivity in the Gaza Strip.
Among those released Sunday were 55 minors, aged 14 to 17.
Israel released 477 Palestinians in October in exchange for Israeli army Sergeant Gilad Shalit who was captured in 2006 during a cross-border raid from Gaza into southern Israel.
The Israeli Prison Service says unlike the prisoners exchanged in October, none of the second group has been convicted of killing Israelis.
Also Sunday, the Israeli Housing Ministry began seeking contractors to build some 1,000 homes in the occupied West Bank.
The homes are part of a settlement plan announced earlier in the year. Last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered construction to be sped up after the United Nations cultural agency UNESCO granted the Palestinians membership.
Israel opposes Palestinian efforts to join the U.N. in the absence of a negotiated peace deal.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.
Source: Global Security.org
Christmas Concert from Lebanon
Not to be missed! Enjoy this delightful Christmas concert sponsored by The Lebanese National Higher Conservatory of Music
Choir: the Antonine University Choir, the NDU Choir and the Lebanese National Higher Conservatory Choir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CA2vdo9eOk
Choir: the Antonine University Choir, the NDU Choir and the Lebanese National Higher Conservatory Choir
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CA2vdo9eOk
Monday, December 19, 2011
USA Behind in ESG Investments
The US is falling behind other countries and regions in integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into mainstream investment decisions, largely due to perceived legal or fiduciary risks, experts said.
“There’s no question in my mind that Northern Europe has got sustainable investing in its sights,” Roger Urwin, global head of investment content for consultancy firm Towers Watson, told attendees of the ESG USA 2011 conference in New York on December 13.
Australia and the UK look to be next to jump on the ESG bandwagon, but there are “big and very ugly roadblocks in the US” to sustainable investing, he said.
The issue of fiduciary duty is a major barrier to the incorporation of ESG factors in investment decision-making in the US, said Jay Youngdahl, trustee for a $650 million benefit fund and a partner at law firm Youngdahl & Citti in Houston, Texas. A fiduciary duty is an obligation to act in the best interest of another party, in this context, the investors in a fund.
“It is holding it back,” he said. “It is a refuge for people who do not want to see ESG put into investments. It does not need to be. This roadblock is an incorrect roadblock legally.”
Any time trustees want to do anything in the ESG space, lawyers tell them this would be a violation of their fiduciary duties, Youngdahl said. “That’s wrong generally speaking,” he said. “On fiduciary duty, there is an extraordinarily high level of intellectually sloppiness that is a major problem for lawyers who work in this area.”
But the Occupy movement in the US has provided a spur to rethink many things, including fiduciary duty as it relates to ESG investing, Youngdahl said. “But it takes courage,” he said. “The American legal establishment at this point does not have that courage.”
In August, investment manager Pimco signed up to the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI) and adopted ESG integration into its overall investment process. But more market-leading investment firms need to follow in Pimco’s footsteps and commit to the UN PRI to create momentum in the US and foster widespread adoption, said Michael Burns, Pimco’s executive vice-president.
The firm had extremely strong management support for this initiative, and pressure from and endorsement by clients around the world “definitely accelerated the process”, he said.
“We’ve had a number of Northern European investors help us to understand at an early stage the value of ESG factors in investment decision-making,” Burns said.
During a review, Pimco discovered it was already taking a number of steps that were ESG-related, such as imposing a rigorous standard in evaluating the governance structures of companies. “We were just terrible at communicating it to the broader investment community,” he said.
But there are potential impediments for investment managers considering adopting ESG integration, including the fiduciary duty issue and the need for firms to become comfortable with the legal representations they will make about incorporating ESG, Burns said. For example, when signing on to the UN PRI, a company is making a representation about what it will do and companies need to understand the ramifications and be sure they won't expose themselves to liability.
“I think the legal uncertainty is something that makes some firms step away,” he said.
Another key issue is managers’ lack of information about investors’ true interest in ESG integration, with some investors opposing such initiatives.
“Being able to speak to that audience is equally important as being able to speak to the audience that’s very supportive and I don’t think many investment managers are willing to have those tough conversations,” he said.
Incorporating ESG also requires significant time, resources and training. “It is a costly investment, but it’s one we think will pay off over time,” Burns said.
Source: Environmental Finance
H/T to Ron Robins MBA at Investing for the Soul. Ron has this to say: "In the US, the degree of scepticism about human induced climate change is much greater than it is in Europe. Just look at what the Republican presidential hopefuls say on this issue! Thus, such attitudes influence American's beliefs of the relevance of ESG issues.
Meanwhile, we all know that companies who lead in responding most effectively to ESG issues are generally 'best of sector,' both financially and in comparative stock performance."
“There’s no question in my mind that Northern Europe has got sustainable investing in its sights,” Roger Urwin, global head of investment content for consultancy firm Towers Watson, told attendees of the ESG USA 2011 conference in New York on December 13.
Australia and the UK look to be next to jump on the ESG bandwagon, but there are “big and very ugly roadblocks in the US” to sustainable investing, he said.
The issue of fiduciary duty is a major barrier to the incorporation of ESG factors in investment decision-making in the US, said Jay Youngdahl, trustee for a $650 million benefit fund and a partner at law firm Youngdahl & Citti in Houston, Texas. A fiduciary duty is an obligation to act in the best interest of another party, in this context, the investors in a fund.
“It is holding it back,” he said. “It is a refuge for people who do not want to see ESG put into investments. It does not need to be. This roadblock is an incorrect roadblock legally.”
Any time trustees want to do anything in the ESG space, lawyers tell them this would be a violation of their fiduciary duties, Youngdahl said. “That’s wrong generally speaking,” he said. “On fiduciary duty, there is an extraordinarily high level of intellectually sloppiness that is a major problem for lawyers who work in this area.”
But the Occupy movement in the US has provided a spur to rethink many things, including fiduciary duty as it relates to ESG investing, Youngdahl said. “But it takes courage,” he said. “The American legal establishment at this point does not have that courage.”
In August, investment manager Pimco signed up to the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI) and adopted ESG integration into its overall investment process. But more market-leading investment firms need to follow in Pimco’s footsteps and commit to the UN PRI to create momentum in the US and foster widespread adoption, said Michael Burns, Pimco’s executive vice-president.
The firm had extremely strong management support for this initiative, and pressure from and endorsement by clients around the world “definitely accelerated the process”, he said.
“We’ve had a number of Northern European investors help us to understand at an early stage the value of ESG factors in investment decision-making,” Burns said.
During a review, Pimco discovered it was already taking a number of steps that were ESG-related, such as imposing a rigorous standard in evaluating the governance structures of companies. “We were just terrible at communicating it to the broader investment community,” he said.
But there are potential impediments for investment managers considering adopting ESG integration, including the fiduciary duty issue and the need for firms to become comfortable with the legal representations they will make about incorporating ESG, Burns said. For example, when signing on to the UN PRI, a company is making a representation about what it will do and companies need to understand the ramifications and be sure they won't expose themselves to liability.
“I think the legal uncertainty is something that makes some firms step away,” he said.
Another key issue is managers’ lack of information about investors’ true interest in ESG integration, with some investors opposing such initiatives.
“Being able to speak to that audience is equally important as being able to speak to the audience that’s very supportive and I don’t think many investment managers are willing to have those tough conversations,” he said.
Incorporating ESG also requires significant time, resources and training. “It is a costly investment, but it’s one we think will pay off over time,” Burns said.
Source: Environmental Finance
H/T to Ron Robins MBA at Investing for the Soul. Ron has this to say: "In the US, the degree of scepticism about human induced climate change is much greater than it is in Europe. Just look at what the Republican presidential hopefuls say on this issue! Thus, such attitudes influence American's beliefs of the relevance of ESG issues.
Meanwhile, we all know that companies who lead in responding most effectively to ESG issues are generally 'best of sector,' both financially and in comparative stock performance."
430 Dead and Many Missing in Philippine Floods
 |
| Women holding their dead children |
Tens of thousands in the Philippines have fled to higher ground, several hundred have been killed and many more are missing after a tropical storm in the area resulted in huge flash floods.
“Massive flooding has been reported over the region, especially in Iligan City and Cagayan de Oro City,” national disaster rescue agency head Benito Ramos told the BBC.
Much of the flooding occurred during the night while residents of the region affected were sleeping. The latest reports say as many as 430 people have been brought to funeral parlors around the country, but officials say the numbers might rise because many are still missing.
As many as 10,000 soldiers are reportedly helping with rescue efforts.
“I can’t explain how these things happened,” Military Spokesman Colonel Leopoldo Galon told the BBC. “Entire villages were swept into the sea.”
Read the full report here.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Pope Benedict: First Human Right is to Life
Pope Benedict XVI has sent a powerful message for life to the world at Christmas time. Lifesitenews reports that, speaking at his Angelus address to thousands of pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's square, the Holy Father acknowledged the 63rd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and said "Dear friends, on the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, remember that the first of all rights is the right to life."
Pope Benedict from the beginning of his pontificate has used many opportunities to raise the right to life, demonstrating his primary concern for what he considers the most basic human right.
Shortly after becoming pope, Benedict XVI noted that attacks on preborn children, which include abortion and destructive research on embryos, are "today's gravest injustice." In the first book he published as pope, Benedict emphasized that the fight against abortion must continue. Significantly he wrote, "There is no such thing as 'small murders.'"
In March of 2006, the pope stressed that, "as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus" for political involvement is around the "non-negotiable" matters of life, family and parental rights in education. And putting the principle into practice, while visiting both the U.S. president and the Canadian prime minister in 2009, the Holy Father gave the right to life priority in the discourse.
In recent years the pope has become increasingly insistent that the Catholic Church take up ever more strenuously the fight for the right to life. "Guaranteeing the right to life is a duty upon which the future of humanity depends," he said in 2007. Also that year he noted that the right to life "must be supported by everyone because it is fundamental with respect to other human rights."
His most striking move, according to LifeSite, was an unprecedented call to all Catholic churches worldwide to join him in a vigil for all 'nascent human life' on November 27 last year.
Source: Youth Defense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)