Yes or No:
Do objective moral norms which are valid for everyone, exist.
Do you think that the flourishing of peace and justice depend on the society’s members believing in a benevolent God Who is the source of the good and the author of moral norms?
Do you think that the family—based on marriage between a man and a woman—is the first and fundamental unit of society and is a sanctuary for the creation and nurturing of children and that it should be defended and strengthened, not redefined or undermined?
Does the good of our society depend on the strength of healthy families?
Does the good of a society depend on its members having a good conscience?
Should a person of good conscience always attempt to make a sound moral judgment based on the truth by examining facts and background?
Should a person of good conscience discern the true good in every circumstance and then choose the right means of achieving it?
Basic human rights will never conflict with objective moral norms?
Does achieving a good end ever justify using immoral means?
Does a good conscience coupled with good moral norms offer the most effective means to protect that the weak and vulnerable and defend human rights and dignity?
Can human reason grasp as true, respect for the dignity of every person?
Does every member of a society have a direct duty to work for a just ordering of that society?
Does a society have an obligation to protect its most vulnerable members?
Are there some things that we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons and as such are intrinsically evil and must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned?
Are these examples of violations of human dignity that we must never do because they are intrinsically evil: genocide, torture, the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, human cloning, destructive research on human embryos, and other acts that directly violate the sanctity and dignity of human life e.g., the direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death?
Are these examples of violations of human dignity that we must never do because they are intrinsically evil: acts of racism, treating workers as mere means to an end, deliberately subjecting workers to subhuman living conditions, and treating the poor as disposable?
An individual should not choose to do something that is always opposed to the authentic good of human beings merely as an exercise of his/her personal freedom?
Is a legal system, that supports individual choice to do something that is always opposed to the authentic good of human beings, fundamentally flawed?
Should we avoid making ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity even if the issue is always opposed to the authentic good of human beings?
Should we avoid considering a particular issue involving human life and dignity as just one issue among many and avoid not assigning priority?
Should we dismiss or ignore serious threats to human life and dignity, to focus on one particular threat?