Hungary fights for the family
The European Union, presently comprised of 27 nations, operates through a hybrid system of supranational and intergovernmental decision-making. The larger countries such as Germany and France, are run by governments that are at the vanguard of social liberalism’s many experiments, and they control many decisions in the EU. Currently, they are fighting to strip Hungarian parents of their rights, while at the same time accusing the Hungarian government of adopting discriminatory “homophobic” laws. The Hungary law in question is The Child Protection Law, passed on June 15, 2021, which includes various anti-child abuse and anti-pedophilia measures, such as a ban on institutions promoting transgenderism and homosexuality to children under the age of 18. The EU responded with a legal case against Hungary, and was joined by more than a dozen European countries, including France and Germany. They are contending that the Hungarian law was passed in haste without prior consultation with civil society, the government opposition, and other stakeholders. The Venice Commission, a European advisory board with no legal standing in the issue, declared that the law was “incompatible” with international human rights norms. Other critics argue that the Hungarian law restricts the rights of the LGBTQ community and violates their freedom of expression. Supporters counter that the law is designed to protect the rights of parents and their children. The Orban government emphasizes that education in the schools must not conflict with the will of parents and that the parents have the right to decide how issues of sexuality are discussed with their children. It also requires that platforms used by children must not contain pornography, gratuitous sex, homosexuality and gender reassignment programs. The government notes that nearly four million Hungarians voted in favour of the law . . . to “ban transgender and LGBTQ propaganda for minors.” As RAIR Foundation USA said of the fight between the EU and Hungary, “The battle lines have been drawn, and the fate of millions of innocent children hangs in the balance.”
Killing unborn children is not health care
In a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing (April 26), Dr. Monique Wabbenhorst, a senior research associate at University of Notre Dame and former professor at Duke University School of Medicine, posed a question to pro-abortion lawmakers in attendance: “If abortion is health care, my question is: What disease are your treating?” The hearing was formed to discuss what steps, if any, the federal government should take following the overturn of Roe v Wade. Many federal lawmakers, especially Democrats, led by U.S. president Joe Biden, want to legalize abortion-on-demand throughout the U.S. Wabbenhorst appeared at the committee in order to witness to the humanity of the unborn child, and to urge the legislators to recognize the opportunity they now had to help American mothers and their babies. “The Dobbs decision presents an opportunity to mitigate abortion’s many harms to women, the unborn children, families and the community,” she said. “Abortion not only poses risks to the mother, it is also by definition always lethal to . . . the unborn child who is a human being, a member of the human family, not a clump of cells or a ‘potential’ child.” Last fall, The Federalist reported on studies that show abortions are more dangerous than childbirth for mothers, countering the lie of pro-abortion activists that abortion is safer than childbirth. The Biden administration has been pushing to expand abortion by forcing taxpayers to fund elective abortions, allowing abortion pills to be mail-ordered and delivered without a doctor’s input, and promoting a bill to force states to legalize abortion-on-demand across the country.
Uganda’s anti-homosexual bill
President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda is a strong pro-life leader in a mainly Christian nation. Along with many other African countries, the laws on sodomy are very strict reaching back to the colonial times. Uganda has reviewed and revised a new law called the Anti-Homosexuality Bill which was passed by Uganda’s parliament in March. Politicians and gay activists in the West have condemned Uganda’s law, which provides criminal sanctions of up to 10 years imprisonment and fines for homosexual behaviour, soliciting, and propaganda. A group of UN “experts” has described the bill, if enacted, as “an egregious violation of human rights.” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken argued that Uganda’s law would undermine fundamental human rights of all Ugandans. The Ugandan people, including religious leaders, are overwhelmingly in favour of the law. Museveni returned the bill to the national assembly “with proposals for improvement,” especially rehabilitation of offenders. According to a government spokesman, Museveni wants those who have engaged in homosexual acts but who would like to live “a normal life again,” be given the opportunity of being rehabilitated. Eng James Abraham Byandala, Uganda’s Minister for Works, commented that “We are making this law for our children . . . This country will stand firm.” Museveni doesn’t worry about pressure from countries such as the U.S. which has warned that it will take economic action against Uganda if punishments are kept in the new law. He responds that “It is good that (the Ugandan lawmakers) rejected the pressure from the imperialists.” Museveni insists that Western countries should not be “imposing their social practices on us.”
Three-parent embryo
Mitochondria are present in almost all human cells, including a woman’s eggs. They create most of a cell’s energy supply which powers every part of our body. According to the British Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), Mitochondria with gene abnormalities can cause severe medical disorders or diseases. A mitochondrial disease, which is incurable, can cause brain damage, muscle weakening, blindness, and kidney, heart, and liver failure, among others ailment. In the U.S., one in 5,000 individuals has a genetic mitochondrial disease and each year, 1,000 to 4,000 babies are born with the disease, which is passed on to the embryo through the mother. There is a treatment called Mitochondrial Donation Treatment (MDT) which involves taking DNA from the eggs of two women (one of whom is the intended mother, the other a donor), and the sperm from one man (the intended father), to create a human embryo without mitochondrial defects. So far, there have been less than five MDT procedures in the U.K according to the HFEA. But, there have been about 20 attempts at conception, which indicates that a number of embryos have been destroyed, and will continue to be destroyed, in the attempt to perfect the technique. Despite the seeming laudable intentions of researchers, there are serious ethical questions surrounding MDT. The treatment involves destroying two newly conceived human embryos in the process of inserting healthy genetic material, in order to create a third embryonic embryo which does not have the diseased mitochondria. This is akin to abortion—the deliberate killing of human embryos. It is also a manipulation of human embryos involving two women and the sperm of one man, in order to “create” a new human being. Dr. David Jones, director of the Catholic Oxford-based Anscombe Bioethics Centre, comments on the ethics of using MDT: “As in all IVF (in vitro fertilization) involving egg or sperm donors, this fractures parenthood . . . It is a fundamental right to know about our biological origins.” Jones and other bioethicists have other concerns about tampering with a human being’s DNA and the risks of passing genetically modified DNA to the individual’s future offspring. Marie Hilliard, a senior fellow at the U.S.-based National Catholic Bioethics Center, states plainly that “the egg donor’s own child is ‘engendered and destroyed’ in the process.” It is “an abuse of the donor, regardless of the perceived good.” The donor is also subject to health risks including “polycystic ovary disease which can lead to infertility.” Although the mitochondrial technique is outlawed in the U.S., Hilliard warns that other in vitro manipulations are taking place, all of which are “an assault on all humanity.”
What has happened to Canadian compassion?
As practiced, Canada’s so-called Medical Assistance in Dying allows citizens to be euthanized if they are too poor to feed themselves, unable to find decent housing, if they find living on the street and under overpasses demeaning, and even if they are lonely and believe that no one cares about them. In fact, Canadian taxpayers pay for these unfortunate souls to depart the earth. While the law does not allow for medicalized killings which permits only MAiD in cases of physical illness, and beginning next year, mental illness. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s ban on assisted suicide. In 2016, Parliament enacted legislation allowing euthanasia for those who suffered from a terminal illness whose natural death was foreseen. In 2021, Parliament enacted Bill C-7, which decreed that as long as the illness or disease “cannot be relieved” – including if the patients refuses treatments that could alleviate the suffering – a patient could be legally killed. Canada spends very little on palliative care, seems to have no policy on homelessness, and has a dismal healthcare program. Before Bill C-7 came into force, Canada’s Chief Budget Officer published a report that the assisted-suicide law previous to 2021 saved taxpayers $86.9 million per year, and it was estimated that the enactment of Bill C-7 would create an additional net saving of $62 million per year. A 2020 study led by Ottawa researchers concluded that medically assisted dying is not being driven by factors such as poverty, isolation, or lack of assess to proper palliative care. Cardus, an Ottawa faith-based think tank disagreed. “This (study) looks at accessibility of MAiD for those who desire it, and that’s important but equally important is putting forward provisions in which those who are not seeking MAiD are protected from being pressured into having it.” In a May 13 National Review article, two Canadian bioethicists are quoted saying: “In the case of the availability of MAiD in Canada those who not only might but have explicitly said they would choose differently if they had access to the options they preferred, we argue that the least harmful way forward is to allow MAiD to be available.” And, “refusing options to people who autonomously pursue MAiD amounts to perpetuating their suffering, hope that this will ultimately lead to a better, more ‘just’ world … this is a world that is unlikely to emerge in the near future.” The bioethicists found MAiD the “least harmful way forward.” The least harmful for whom? Certainly not for the person who is given no choice but feel that suicide is their best, perhaps only, option. And if there is “injustice of current non-ideal circumstances,” why is suicide the only option for the distressed victim? If the system is broken, you don’t kill those who are victims of the system. As has been said, “We have to behave morally in an imperfect world. And the very first principle to maintain any kind of civilized life is a prohibition against killing one another.” Would Canada qualify as a civilized society?
