It remains unclear whether sexual orientation is genetically determined. Even if it is, that doesn’t justify advocacy for same-sex marriage.
A growing laissez-faire libertarian attitude toward social issues among Americans is arguably the most important weapon available to same-sex marriage advocates. Certainly there are LGBT militants with unwavering commitment to the issue, but the vast majority of those who “support” same-sex marriage can hardly be said to support anything. They just have a hard time saying no. They much prefer the sanitary hands off approach—let them live out their sexuality as long as I don’t have to get involved.
Read more at Public Discourse.
Franciscan University biology professor Dr. Daniel Kuebler says the bias against pro-life medical students begins with the first interview for medical school.
Imagine yourself, a senior in college, sitting in the middle of your dream medical-school interview. Because you have done your homework, the interview is going exceedingly well. You seem to have established a rapport with the interviewer, and your answers are crisp, clear and intelligent. It’s going so well that you are starting to feel confident regarding your chances of gaining admission.
That is, until the interviewer hits you with this question: “Suppose a young pregnant woman and her boyfriend come to you seeking an abortion. What would you do?”
What would you do? How would you answer? For pro-life medical-school candidates, there is only one answer: You counsel the couple not to have an abortion. The problem is that, in some cases, this answer could ruin the candidate’s chance of admission.
It is routine for medical-school admission interviews to include open-ended questions on ethical issues. Primarily, these questions are included in the process to see if students can articulate clearly and defend adequately their thoughts on complex issues. If this were the sole reason for their inclusion, questions about abortion and abortion access could play a legitimate role in the interview process. But that is often not the intent of such questions.
Read more at NCRegister.com.
A Catholic biologist weighs in on what is wrong about one aspect of the federal healthcare mandate.
It’s an understatement to say that the Obama administration’s announcement that it will require all health-care plans to include free coverage for contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs (abortifacients) and sterilizations did not go over as smoothly as planned.
While the new rule is similar to provisions already in place in 28 states, the administration distinguished itself by failing to include an adequate religious exemption.
As a result, Catholic charities, colleges and hospitals will be required to provide services that violate their religious beliefs.
The lack of a real religious exemption triggered a wave of backlash that appeared to catch the administration by surprise.
Opposition from many religious circles was to be expected, but the fact that publications such as USA Today and The Washington Post came out in opposition to the lack of a religious exemption could not have been anticipated.
Caught in a firestorm of controversy, the Obama administration tried to wordsmith its way out of the mess.
Read more at NCRegister.com.
International scholars explore God and the universe at a recent conference held at Franciscan University.
Is the universe just a random assemblage of particles devoid of any ultimate meaning, or does it reveal a grander design and purpose? The answer to this profound question has implications for every aspect of human life, from politics to biology to moral theology. If we are accidental tourists adrift in an unwelcome cosmos, we are left to live however we see fit. If, on the other hand, we are designed and created for a purpose, there is a basic human desire not only to understand that purpose but to order our lives toward it.
What then does the scientific study of the universe reveal about purpose and design? Can what we learn about the structure of the universe inform our understanding of God? It was questions such as these that drew a group of international scholars to Franciscan University to participate in the University’s first Science and Faith Conference, December 2-3, 2012.
Read more at Franciscan Way.
Two Catholic universities’ decisions to drop student health-care plans show Obamacare’s long-term goal: Force Americans to choose government-subsidized plans over no insurance at all.
Two Catholic universities, Franciscan University of Steubenville and Ave Maria University, recently announced that they will drop their student health-care plans for the coming year. The schools also announced that they will no longer require students to have health insurance.
Given the giant range of institutions and people affected by Obamacare and its mandates, the impact of this decision by two universities, each with less than 3,000 students, may seem small. But it is not the scope of impact that matters so much as the broader problem the decision highlights. Two federal regulations that pushed Franciscan and Ave Maria to drop student health-care plans indicate quite clearly what will happen if Obamacare is allowed to stand: More Americans will become uninsured unless they transition into government-subsidized healthcare plans.
Read more at The Public Discourse.