Canada has gone all in for euthanasia, and it is going to get worse now that the “strict guidelines to protect against abuse” — in the movement’s parlance — have expanded to people with chronic and disabling conditions, and will soon expand to those with dementia and mental illnesses.
Like the abolitionists, anti-child labor campaigners, the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, temperance, anti-war activism, feminism, gay rights, labor union organizing, and so forth, in bringing the country to this portentous moment, pro-life campaigners acted in the grand tradition of social activism that has been a hallmark of the American experience.
As the Biden administration continues to try to use its regulatory powers to force a “gender-affirming” approach to children who question their sex, in other countries the rubber-stamping of a gender-dysphoric child’s belief and the prescribing of puberty-blocking drugs are under serious reconsideration. The U.K., Sweden, Finland, and France — not exactly Bible Belt countries — are all pulling back from the rush to transition children. Now, in the U.K., the Tavistock Gender Clinic — run by the National Health Service — is being shut down because it is not safe for children. From the Daily Mail story: The NHS‘s controversial child transgender clinic will shut its doors after a damning report found it was ‘not safe’ for children. The gender identity service at Tavistock & Portman NHS Foundation Read More ›
The harm done to science by fraudsters, data manipulation, sloppy peer review, ideological bias, and outright lying by public scientific spokespersons cannot be overstated. There’s only one cure to the current malaise: unremitting and apolitical scientific excellence.
I have written here previously of several attempts to enact “nature rights” kinds of laws, specifically targeting water, in the State of Florida. The threat became so real — with Orange County passing a “rights of water” ordinance — that a law was enacted at the state level prohibiting granting rights to nature.
We know that radical left-wing subversives want to legalize hard drugs. So do some libertarians—which is a polite word for social Darwinism. But conservatives generally oppose legalization, understanding the devastating social costs and personal dissipation that hard drug abuse causes to families, communities, and individuals who would be tempted to imbibe by the lack of potential legal consequence.
Back in the ’90s, the assisted-suicide movement tried to convince the Supreme Court to impose a Roe v. Wade–style decision for their cause that would circumvent the democratic process by imposing doctor-hastened death as a constitutional right.
On this episode of ID the Future, listen in as Wesley J. Smith, Jay W. Richards, Marlo Lewis, and Stephen C. Meyer discuss consensus science at a Washington D.C. event entitled, “March for Science or March for Scientism? Understanding the Real Threats to Science in America.” How can government encourage healthy skepticism yet move forward with policy solutions that involve science? Tune in to hear the discussion.
On this episode of ID the Future, hear Wesley J. Smith’s talk given this April at the “March for Science or March for Scientism? Understanding the Real Threats to Science in America” event hosted by Discovery Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Listen in as he discusses how science has been conflated with ethics and talks about animal and plant rights.
On this episode of ID The Future, we’re featuring clips of questions and answers with Wesley J. Smith and John West from the premiere of The War on Humans documentary. Smith and West briefly answer questions about the threat of the fringe element of the radical animal rights movement; the advance of animal rights proponents political agenda; and the regulatory process that is creeping towards scientism.
On this episode of ID the Future Joshua Youngkin concludes his discussion on the new book & documentary film The War on Humans with the book’s author, Wesley J. Smith. In the fourth and final segment of the series, Smith discusses the impact of Darwinism on bioethics and human rights and why we need to take the anti-humanism movement seriously.
On this episode of ID the Future, hear from bioethicist Wesley J. Smith as he continues his conversation on his new book The War on Humans, also adapted as a documentary film. In this third podcast of the series, you’ll hear about the legal movement to establish legal rights for animals, and even plants. Smith examines the meaning of the term “personhood” and its implications for human rights.
On this episode of ID the Future, hear from bioethicist Wesley J. Smith as he continues his conversation on his new book The War on Humans, also adapted as a documentary film. In this second podcast of the series, you’ll hear about how the conservation movement turned into an anti-human movement, and how this affects humans, especially in the developing world and in marginalized people groups.
On this episode of ID the Future, hear from bioethicist Wesley J. Smith as he talks about his new book The War on Humans, also adapted as a documentary film. In this first podcast of the series, Smith discusses what makes humans unique among the creatures of the earth, and why it matters: “Universal human rights are at stake. The intrinsic dignity of human life is at stake. The understanding of our unique place in the world, both in terms of or value and in terms of obligation, they are at stake.” Listen in!
On this episode of ID the Future, Michael Medved, DI Senior Fellow Wesley J. Smith, and CSC Associate Director John West examine the question: Are humans unique, or are we, as many argue, just another animal? Tune in to this enlightening conversation about human exceptionalism and dignity — the subject of the upcoming documentary The War on Humans.
On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with bioethicist Wesley J. Smith about a recent article he wrote at First Things. In this article, Smith responds to an accusation that he is “anti-science” for suggesting that science should have ethical boundaries. Listen in as Luskin and Smith discuss how the “anti-science” label, along with similar terms, is often used to try and suppress dialogue and protect scientific orthodoxy.