Posts

Posted on

A Culture of Life and Civilization of Love

Notre Dame professor, O. Carter Snead, advocates for a “culture of life and civilization of love,” which he defines as a society that values every human life, born and unborn, and supports them with love, care, and legal protection. He emphasizes that being pro-life is not merely about being “anti-abortion,” but about recognizing the equal dignity and worth of every human being. This culture of life, he argues, is not about exclusion but about expanding the moral and legal community to include everyone, especially the most vulnerable.

He says we should ask a question about “hard limits” to those who support abortion rights. For example: should there be any restrictions on abortion at all, such as gestational stage or reasons like sex-selection or preventing the birth of a child with disabilities? He is pushing for a public debate that questions the absolute freedom of choice in the matter of abortion and urges the media to ask these hard questions as well.

Snead also advocates for “new political approaches” that involve creating partnerships across political divides and rethinking the role of government in supporting mothers, children, and families. He praises the efforts of “red” states that have expanded postpartum Medicaid coverage, increased tax credits for children, and funded programs for mothers and children. However, he also encourages reaching out to “blue” states, even those that have expanded access to abortion, to work on measures that support women and families who choose to parent or make adoption plans.

This is a call to action for a more inclusive and supportive society that values all life; a society that challenges the status quo, pushes for public debate, and encourages political cooperation for the benefit of mothers, children, and families.

Let us join with Snead and support a “culture of life and civilization of love” where everyone counts, everyone is cared for, body and soul, and everyone is protected, especially the weakest and most vulnerable.

Source: “Reflections on Dobbs, One Year Later” | The Hill

+++

Choose Life & Love

Posted on

Defining Sex Precisely: Return To Normal

I just read an excellent article by Jay Richards: Why States Must Define Sex Precisely.

He argues for a return to the biological understanding of sex, rejecting the subjective notions of gender ideology. Also, he calls for precise legal definitions of sex that are rooted in biology and that can withstand the ideological pressures of the current age.

The once uncontested definitions of “male” and “female” are now under siege due to the growing influence of gender ideology. This ideology seeks to redefine sex in federal laws and regulations to include “gender identity,” a move that threatens to undermine all preexisting legal references to sex.

Among other things, this blog has pointed out that Title IX advancements in the area of Women’s Sport has been negatively impacted by this move.

Legal Matters

Richards criticizes the vague and general definitions of sex proposed by some state legislators, arguing that they fail to provide a clear distinction between males and females.

Vague legal definitions create openings for gender ideology to gain a toehold.

He highlights the need for precise definitions of sex in state law, citing the ongoing debate in Montana as an example.

As I have done on this blog, Richards criticizes the misuse of disorders of sexual development, often mislabeled as “intersex” conditions, to argue for the existence of more than two sexes or fluidity of sexes. He points out that these disorders occur in a minuscule percentage of the population and do not justify the claims of gender ideology.

The main way gender ideologues have confused the public is by falsely claiming that disorders of sexual development, often mislabeled “intersex” conditions, prove that there are more than two sexes—or that the sexes are somehow fluid or mere endpoints on a spectrum.

Rather these conditions are disorders…

For instance, we know that humans are bipeds—that they naturally have two legs. But if a child is born without one or both legs, do we conclude that the newborn isn’t human, is a member of another species, or is “interspecies”? Of course not. We recognize that the child suffers from some sort of disorder—some disruption in development involving, say, chromosomes or an event in utero. Note that we’re engaged in counterfactual reasoning. We infer that the newborn would have had two legs except for some event or abnormality that prevented this from happening.

The article concludes by advocating for precise definitions of sex that capture the central concept of biological sex, account for normal development and disorders, and accommodate different stages of development. For example:

A human female is, minimally, a member of the human species who, under normal development, produces relatively large, relatively immobile gametes—ova—at some point in her life cycle, and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of that gamete.

For the discussions ahead, legislative or otherwise, learn these arguments!

Companion Post

DSD’s and “Sex Assignment” – Podcast

+++

Sex Matters