"They're using the death of all those people to shove their point down our throats," said freshman Cass Mercer, 19, of Auburn, who did argue with organizers. "It's horrendous, and it's abuse of life."
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
More pro-choice tolerance
It looks like some pro-choicers at the University of New Hampshire aren't that tolerant of right to free speech if prolifers are doing the speaking. This article in the Union Leader has another classic quote from a pro-choicer opposed to the display of graphic pictures of aborted children.
The problem with treating human embryos as property
A woman in the UK has lost her final appeal to be given the chance to implant embryos which were created by her and her ex-fiancee. Her ex-fiancee wants the embryos destroyed.
How can a change in location ( in a lab vs. traveling down a woman's fallopian tube) change what a human embryo is or isn't?
After the decision, Ms Evans said: "I am distraught at the court's decision. It is very hard for me to accept the embryos will be destroyed."The UK's law treats IVF embryos as the shared property of both individuals up until the point of implantation. But what if (and why doesn't) UK law treated human embryos created by sexual intercourse the same way? Would a man, who had unprotected sex with a woman, be able to demand every measure be taken to prevent the woman's uterus from accepting the implantation of a human embryo which could have resulted from the couple's sexual intercourse?
How can a change in location ( in a lab vs. traveling down a woman's fallopian tube) change what a human embryo is or isn't?
Ironic, don't you think?
On the day U.S. Senator Tom Harkin proclaims adult stem cells "haven't provided the answer for juvenile diabetes" (third to last paragraph) and "the presentations about adult stem cells having as much or more potential than embryonic stem cells, in my view, do not hold scientific water. I think they are overstated," the Journal of the American Medical Association publishes a study out of Brazil where patients with juvenile diabetes were successfully treated with their own adult stem cells.
Or is that karma?
Here's the abstract of the JAMA study.
Or is that karma?
Here's the abstract of the JAMA study.
Tags:
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Self-abortion charge
A woman in New York has reportedly been charged with second-degree self-abortion (a misdemeanor) after attempting to abort her 13 week pregnancy with a cocktail of prescription and over-the-counter drugs. I'm not seeing exact details anywhere at the link above or at this story in the Post-Standard which say if the unborn child is still alive or not.
I wonder how pro-choice individuals who favor the bodily autonomy argument feel about this.
I wonder how pro-choice individuals who favor the bodily autonomy argument feel about this.
Life Links 4/10/07
Here's another story about some of those individuals whom the National Abortion Federation thinks we should celebrate.
Rebecca Taylor on the "only glimmer of hope" (according to some newspapers) which has never come anywhere near working.
The Portsmouth Herald has an article about the Genocide Awareness Project's recent trip to the University of New Hampshire. Here's a quote from a pro-choice student about why she's pro-choice:
Scientists at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine are hoping they'll be able to use cochlear stem cells to treat hearing loss in mice and eventually humans.
Rebecca Taylor on the "only glimmer of hope" (according to some newspapers) which has never come anywhere near working.
I have to ask the Joplin Globe how can some procedure that to date has never worked in humans be anyone's "only" or even best hope? Ethics aside, shouldn't we be a tad skeptical and see if anyone can actually clone a human embryo and extract stem cells from it before we decide it is the "only" hope?
The Portsmouth Herald has an article about the Genocide Awareness Project's recent trip to the University of New Hampshire. Here's a quote from a pro-choice student about why she's pro-choice:
"I have seen firsthand what happens to these children that don't get adopted," she said, sobbing. "So many little girls are forced into (slavery); to me it would be better off if they had been aborted. Abortion is choosing a better life even if it's not living."Abortion is choosing a better life for the child?? How is not living a "better life?" If killing unborn children makes them better off because they wouldn't have the chance of being forced into slavery, then wouldn't it follow that killing those poor little girls who are forced into slavery would make them better off as well?
Scientists at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine are hoping they'll be able to use cochlear stem cells to treat hearing loss in mice and eventually humans.
Monday, April 09, 2007
I knew it
The Cadbury Eggs shrunk this year. My wife didn't believe me. Thankfully, the Office's B.J. Novak stashes Easter candy and has a helpful comparison.
Life Links 4/9/07
Wesley Smith in the San Francisco Chronicle on a bill in California to legalize assisted suicide.
Yuval Levin on the contradiction in the U.S. Senate's stem cell bill.
Miranda Sawyer, a broadcaster in the UK, examines her pro-choice beliefs after a trip to America for a television program about the abortion debate in America. The most poignant moment comes early in the article when Miranda writes,
So, in other words, abortion should be legal early on because the unborn at that stage aren't persons but we have no objective way of proving unborn children later in development are persons. It seems like Miranda realized her original pro-choice position (killing unborn children should be legal because they're unwanted) was illogical so she accepted another pro-choice position regardless of how logical it was.
Yuval Levin on the contradiction in the U.S. Senate's stem cell bill.
All of this has caused senators to revise the House bill and include support for ethical alternatives. But given that revision, the Senate bill now contains a contradiction that its sponsors will need to learn from for next time. It acknowledges the value of exploring means of deriving pluripotent stem cells without destroying embryos, and so acknowledges also the problem inherent in such destruction. But if they now recognize that problem, and the value of advancing scientific techniques that allow us to avert it, the sponsors of the Senate bill need to rethink the rest of their measure.
Miranda Sawyer, a broadcaster in the UK, examines her pro-choice beliefs after a trip to America for a television program about the abortion debate in America. The most poignant moment comes early in the article when Miranda writes,
My mind kept returning to the pregnancy test. If my reaction to those fateful double lines that said 'baby ahead' had been horror instead of hurrah - and, to be honest, it wasn't unalloyed joy that I felt when I saw them; I was scared, too - then I would have had little hesitation in having an abortion. But it was that very fact that was confusing me. I was calling the life inside me a baby because I wanted it. Yet if I hadn't, I would think of it just as a group of cells that it was OK to kill. It was the same entity. It was merely my response to it that determined whether it would live or die. That seemed irrational to me. Maybe even immoral.Miranda, however, concludes that early term abortion should be legal on demand because while the unborn are alive they don't have "human characteristics"/aren't persons but then notes for late-term abortions, "Who are we to say whether the life inside is a person, or not?"
So, in other words, abortion should be legal early on because the unborn at that stage aren't persons but we have no objective way of proving unborn children later in development are persons. It seems like Miranda realized her original pro-choice position (killing unborn children should be legal because they're unwanted) was illogical so she accepted another pro-choice position regardless of how logical it was.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Life Links 4/5/07
Indian scientists have apparently used adult stem cells to successfully treat a man with Parkinson's.
HT: Mary Meets Dolly
Is the U.S. experiencing a "brain-drain" of stem cell researchers because of our federal policy on embryonic stem cell funding? If yes, then why is a leading British scientist moving to Minnesota to head their Stem Cell Institute.
Former Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz continues to show that either 1.) his knowledge of stem cell research and the issues surrounding it are rather poor or 2.) he's a liar. False claims in the article include Schwarz's claim that "hundreds of thousands of unwanted blastocysts are discarded as medical waste each year" and Michigan laws against killing embryos for research would somehow put Michigan researchers to the "bottom of the list" when it comes to federal grants for embryonic stem cell research. Schwarz also claims researchers will leave Michigan for other places where the "foundation has been laid for them to do the research" and then he lists other countries including France and Germany. According to the International Society for Stem Cell Research's (a pro-embryonic stem cell research organization) web site, France and Germany both prohibit "the procurement of embryonic stem cells from human embryos" just like Michigan does. So what's going on Joe? How can this great foundation get laid in countries which have similar laws to Michigan?
The article also claims the bill to expand the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research "passed the House and Senate twice, both times vetoed by President George W. Bush." Twice? Really? I thought we were still waiting for the Senate to vote on this bill before the President can veto it. Where is the author getting his or her information? Schwarz couldn't be that ignorant? Or could he?
HT: Mary Meets Dolly
Is the U.S. experiencing a "brain-drain" of stem cell researchers because of our federal policy on embryonic stem cell funding? If yes, then why is a leading British scientist moving to Minnesota to head their Stem Cell Institute.
Former Republican Congressman Joe Schwarz continues to show that either 1.) his knowledge of stem cell research and the issues surrounding it are rather poor or 2.) he's a liar. False claims in the article include Schwarz's claim that "hundreds of thousands of unwanted blastocysts are discarded as medical waste each year" and Michigan laws against killing embryos for research would somehow put Michigan researchers to the "bottom of the list" when it comes to federal grants for embryonic stem cell research. Schwarz also claims researchers will leave Michigan for other places where the "foundation has been laid for them to do the research" and then he lists other countries including France and Germany. According to the International Society for Stem Cell Research's (a pro-embryonic stem cell research organization) web site, France and Germany both prohibit "the procurement of embryonic stem cells from human embryos" just like Michigan does. So what's going on Joe? How can this great foundation get laid in countries which have similar laws to Michigan?
The article also claims the bill to expand the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research "passed the House and Senate twice, both times vetoed by President George W. Bush." Twice? Really? I thought we were still waiting for the Senate to vote on this bill before the President can veto it. Where is the author getting his or her information? Schwarz couldn't be that ignorant? Or could he?
Tags:
Abortion Debate at Grand Valley between Scott Klusendorf and Nadine Strossen
Last night I attend an abortion debate on the campus of Grand Valley State University between Scott Klusendorf, the president of the Life Training Institute, and Nadine Strossen, the president of the ACLU. The debate was put on as part of the campus' fire and ice week where both the Students for Life and the Voices for Healthy Choices put on a variety of events to share their views. The debate was the easily the largest event. The room with about 300-400 seats was packed and people had to be turned away.
The debate format was set up so each speaker was given 15 minutes to make their presentation and then 5 minutes for rebuttals. Participants from the opposing students groups then asked 4 questions each and Klusendorf and Strossen were each given a chance to rebut what the other said in their answers. The general audience was then allowed to ask questions. I'd estimate the audience asked somewhere between 10 and 15 questions (including one by yours truly) and each speaker was given the opportunity if they desired to address the question. The debate concluded with each presenter giving a 3 minute closing statement.
I'll start with the positives for Strossen. Thankfully, she wasn't one of those pro-choicers who argue men can't have a say in the abortion debate and when one of the prepared questions by the Voices for Healthy Choices group asked a question which bordered on making the "you're a man, so your opinion doesn't count" assertion, Strossen said something along the lines of "a presenter's gender shouldn't play a role in this debate." Klusendorf showed a video which showed graphic images of unborn children and Strossen never tried to argue the images were false (I don't believe she ever mentioned the video at all). She also, as far as I can remember, avoided any kind of personal attack on Scott.
Besides that, I was really disappointed in how poor Strossen's presentation and arguments were. I guess I was expecting something more from the president of the ACLU. She noted she had visited Scott's web site and read some of his material yet she didn't seem prepared to deal with his arguments and presentation which are pretty much summed up here.
First off, she used a lot of really bad and/or old pro-choice myths. The 1.2 million abortion per year before Roe myth, the thousands of women died from illegal abortions before Roe myth, and emergency contraception could prevent most or almost all unplanned pregnancies fairy tale. There was also the "safe, legal and rare" comment, numerous quotes from U.S. Supreme Court decisions (including ending her opening presentation with the much ridiculed "mystery of life" quote from Planned Parenthood v. Casey), and noting desire to reduce unplanned pregnancies.
Strossen's true downfall, however, was her decision to completely avoid making an kind of argument regarding what the unborn are. Klusendorf begins the debate by framing it around what the unborn are and stating he will concede the debate if Strossen can prove the unborn aren't human beings. Strossen didn't even try. She couldn't even muster a "alright they may be human beings but they aren't persons" kind of argument. All she could do was continually assert the unborn were "potential life" without ever once making an argument trying to differentiate between "potential life" (which she also said included sperm and egg cells) and actual life. She also asserted that when life begins is a moral question and was unable to come up with a single scientific source to back up her opinion that "there is no scientific consensus" on whether the unborn are alive or not when asked by Klusendorf.
Strossen also tried to play a couple of real obvious rhetorical ploys. At one point, she asserted the prolife movement made no exceptions for the life of the mother. Klusendorf replied by asking her to cite legislation in the U.S. which didn't provide an exception for the life of the mother. Strossen then cited how the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act didn't have an exception for the health of the mother.
Strossen also claims she and the ACLU were fine with parental consent/notifications laws as long as they have a bypass waiver. The ACLU's web page on parental consent/notification legislation says different. She claimed she knew no one who supports infanticide. (Cough)Peter Singer(cough)
Strossen got her best response from the pro-choice members of the audience when she appealed to a woman's bodily autonomy and how women shouldn't be forced to have their bodies controlled. Yet she never really made a strong argument for it. She didn't invest the time needed to make a Judith Jarvis Thomson-like Violinist Argument. It was this "you're not forced to give your kidney up to someone who needs one, so women shouldn't be forced to carrying a potential life" type of assertion. Klusendorf discussed the problem with absolute bodily autonomy in his concluding comments using thalidomide and other examples to show that pregnant women shouldn't have absolute physical autonomy. Strossen's response was that she never argued for absolute bodily autonomy for pregnant women and noted she wasn't opposed to abortion restrictions after viability as long as their were exception for the life and the health of the mother.
Her worst point came, I felt, when she said that she respects the lives of cockroaches and something like she wouldn't necessarily "privilege the lives of humans over animals" in response to Klusendorf's use of Greg Koukl's "Daddy, can I kill this?" argument. I was stunned.
During the question and answer period with the audience, Strossen again and again decided not to make a comment or rebut what Klusendorf argued which seemed real odd to me. It was like she ran out of steam. The question I asked to Strossen was, "If abortion is basic human right and a foundation freedom (which is how she had described abortion) then why should this basic human right be exercised rarely? And are there other foundation freedoms and basic human rights which should be exercised rarely?"
Her response started by listing a couple of other basic rights she thought should be exercised rarely including assisted suicide and killing someone in self-defense. Her reasoning for why was because she has respect for the "potential life" of the fetus. This is utter nonsense considering she also considers sperm and egg to be "potential life." Does Strossen also think men should lose their sperm rarely and women's eggs should only be released rarely? Of course not.
If I had another question or more time, I would have asked how viability changes Strossen's view on abortion. If women have the right not to be encumbered by a pregnancy they don't want then how does viability change that? Even if the child reaches the stage of bare viability, the pregnant woman will still have to carry the child for a couple more months. Why should women be forced to carry a viable pregnancy to term if they don't want to? Why should pregnant women with viable fetuses be forced to use their bodies against their will when no one else in society is forced to do that?
At the beginning of the debate, Strossen noted she was proud to be willing to debate Scott (since Scott's web site notes how some pro-choicers won't debate him). I sincerely doubt that will be case ever again.
The debate format was set up so each speaker was given 15 minutes to make their presentation and then 5 minutes for rebuttals. Participants from the opposing students groups then asked 4 questions each and Klusendorf and Strossen were each given a chance to rebut what the other said in their answers. The general audience was then allowed to ask questions. I'd estimate the audience asked somewhere between 10 and 15 questions (including one by yours truly) and each speaker was given the opportunity if they desired to address the question. The debate concluded with each presenter giving a 3 minute closing statement.
I'll start with the positives for Strossen. Thankfully, she wasn't one of those pro-choicers who argue men can't have a say in the abortion debate and when one of the prepared questions by the Voices for Healthy Choices group asked a question which bordered on making the "you're a man, so your opinion doesn't count" assertion, Strossen said something along the lines of "a presenter's gender shouldn't play a role in this debate." Klusendorf showed a video which showed graphic images of unborn children and Strossen never tried to argue the images were false (I don't believe she ever mentioned the video at all). She also, as far as I can remember, avoided any kind of personal attack on Scott.
Besides that, I was really disappointed in how poor Strossen's presentation and arguments were. I guess I was expecting something more from the president of the ACLU. She noted she had visited Scott's web site and read some of his material yet she didn't seem prepared to deal with his arguments and presentation which are pretty much summed up here.
First off, she used a lot of really bad and/or old pro-choice myths. The 1.2 million abortion per year before Roe myth, the thousands of women died from illegal abortions before Roe myth, and emergency contraception could prevent most or almost all unplanned pregnancies fairy tale. There was also the "safe, legal and rare" comment, numerous quotes from U.S. Supreme Court decisions (including ending her opening presentation with the much ridiculed "mystery of life" quote from Planned Parenthood v. Casey), and noting desire to reduce unplanned pregnancies.
Strossen's true downfall, however, was her decision to completely avoid making an kind of argument regarding what the unborn are. Klusendorf begins the debate by framing it around what the unborn are and stating he will concede the debate if Strossen can prove the unborn aren't human beings. Strossen didn't even try. She couldn't even muster a "alright they may be human beings but they aren't persons" kind of argument. All she could do was continually assert the unborn were "potential life" without ever once making an argument trying to differentiate between "potential life" (which she also said included sperm and egg cells) and actual life. She also asserted that when life begins is a moral question and was unable to come up with a single scientific source to back up her opinion that "there is no scientific consensus" on whether the unborn are alive or not when asked by Klusendorf.
Strossen also tried to play a couple of real obvious rhetorical ploys. At one point, she asserted the prolife movement made no exceptions for the life of the mother. Klusendorf replied by asking her to cite legislation in the U.S. which didn't provide an exception for the life of the mother. Strossen then cited how the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act didn't have an exception for the health of the mother.
Strossen also claims she and the ACLU were fine with parental consent/notifications laws as long as they have a bypass waiver. The ACLU's web page on parental consent/notification legislation says different. She claimed she knew no one who supports infanticide. (Cough)Peter Singer(cough)
Strossen got her best response from the pro-choice members of the audience when she appealed to a woman's bodily autonomy and how women shouldn't be forced to have their bodies controlled. Yet she never really made a strong argument for it. She didn't invest the time needed to make a Judith Jarvis Thomson-like Violinist Argument. It was this "you're not forced to give your kidney up to someone who needs one, so women shouldn't be forced to carrying a potential life" type of assertion. Klusendorf discussed the problem with absolute bodily autonomy in his concluding comments using thalidomide and other examples to show that pregnant women shouldn't have absolute physical autonomy. Strossen's response was that she never argued for absolute bodily autonomy for pregnant women and noted she wasn't opposed to abortion restrictions after viability as long as their were exception for the life and the health of the mother.
Her worst point came, I felt, when she said that she respects the lives of cockroaches and something like she wouldn't necessarily "privilege the lives of humans over animals" in response to Klusendorf's use of Greg Koukl's "Daddy, can I kill this?" argument. I was stunned.
During the question and answer period with the audience, Strossen again and again decided not to make a comment or rebut what Klusendorf argued which seemed real odd to me. It was like she ran out of steam. The question I asked to Strossen was, "If abortion is basic human right and a foundation freedom (which is how she had described abortion) then why should this basic human right be exercised rarely? And are there other foundation freedoms and basic human rights which should be exercised rarely?"
Her response started by listing a couple of other basic rights she thought should be exercised rarely including assisted suicide and killing someone in self-defense. Her reasoning for why was because she has respect for the "potential life" of the fetus. This is utter nonsense considering she also considers sperm and egg to be "potential life." Does Strossen also think men should lose their sperm rarely and women's eggs should only be released rarely? Of course not.
If I had another question or more time, I would have asked how viability changes Strossen's view on abortion. If women have the right not to be encumbered by a pregnancy they don't want then how does viability change that? Even if the child reaches the stage of bare viability, the pregnant woman will still have to carry the child for a couple more months. Why should women be forced to carry a viable pregnancy to term if they don't want to? Why should pregnant women with viable fetuses be forced to use their bodies against their will when no one else in society is forced to do that?
At the beginning of the debate, Strossen noted she was proud to be willing to debate Scott (since Scott's web site notes how some pro-choicers won't debate him). I sincerely doubt that will be case ever again.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Rudy Giuliani still favors tax dollars being used to fund abortions
In a recent CNN interview with Dana Bash, Rudy Giuliani stands by his 1989 speech where he advocated in favor of the public funding of abortion
But I thought he hated abortion?
At first he tries to dodge the public funding of abortion question but then Bash asks the question again directly. His reasoning is exceptionally lame. He says if abortion is a constitutional right then we have to pay for the abortions of poor women because if we didn't that would deprive them of a constitutional right.
I wonder if he feels that way about the right to bear arms. Free rifles for the poor?
HT: Hot Air
But I thought he hated abortion?
At first he tries to dodge the public funding of abortion question but then Bash asks the question again directly. His reasoning is exceptionally lame. He says if abortion is a constitutional right then we have to pay for the abortions of poor women because if we didn't that would deprive them of a constitutional right.
I wonder if he feels that way about the right to bear arms. Free rifles for the poor?
HT: Hot Air
Tags:
Life Links 4/4/07
Props to Steve Wagner of Stand to Reason for spending an evening presenting the prolife view and then discussing and debating the issue with college students for several hours.
One pro-choicer writes how she fantasizes about "burying a machete" (language warning) in the heads of prolifers who use photos of aborted children. Pro-choice tolerance - gotta love it.
"I think for the pro choice folks out there we do have to realize that it is a life and we are killing our babies."
The above quote is from a woman who says in the same blog entry, "Now I am a pro choice type of person for many many reasons because I truly believe a woman can do whatever she likes with her body."
One pro-choicer writes how she fantasizes about "burying a machete" (language warning) in the heads of prolifers who use photos of aborted children. Pro-choice tolerance - gotta love it.
"I think for the pro choice folks out there we do have to realize that it is a life and we are killing our babies."
The above quote is from a woman who says in the same blog entry, "Now I am a pro choice type of person for many many reasons because I truly believe a woman can do whatever she likes with her body."
House deals with Abortion
Did anyone see the television show House last night? If not, you missed what was probably one of the most prolife scenes on a major network television show in the last number of years.
Annie at AfterAbortion recaps some of what happened. TV.com also has a review of the episode. What I noticed was that Dr. Cuddy was only doctor who treated the pregnant mother and her unborn child as two patients. The other doctors saw the pregnant woman (who didn't want an abortion) as the only patient.
The show previously dealt with abortion in another episode earlier this year.
Annie at AfterAbortion recaps some of what happened. TV.com also has a review of the episode. What I noticed was that Dr. Cuddy was only doctor who treated the pregnant mother and her unborn child as two patients. The other doctors saw the pregnant woman (who didn't want an abortion) as the only patient.
The show previously dealt with abortion in another episode earlier this year.
Tags:
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Life Links 4/3/07
An Australian study has linked abortion with partner violence.
Serge shares how Germany's public policy regarding reproductive issues is fairly close to what many pro-choice advocates would like the U.S. to look like, with the exception of abortions being banned after the first trimester and a parental consent law. Yet every child isn't a wanted child.
The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation's patents on embryonic stem cell research don't cover what they wanted them to cover according the U.S. Patent Office.
The study of 9,683 young Australian women aged 22 to 27 found that those reporting either teenage abortions or abortions later in their 20s, were more than three times as likely to have been abused by a partner as those who didn't terminate.
Serge shares how Germany's public policy regarding reproductive issues is fairly close to what many pro-choice advocates would like the U.S. to look like, with the exception of abortions being banned after the first trimester and a parental consent law. Yet every child isn't a wanted child.
The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation's patents on embryonic stem cell research don't cover what they wanted them to cover according the U.S. Patent Office.
Debating God
The MSNBC web site has a 10 page conversation/debate between Rick Warren and Sam Harris on various religious moderated by Jon Meacham.
At one point Harris condemns treating humans as farm equipment:
Putting aside Harris' apparent ignorance about the millions of federal tax dollars which are provided to human embryonic stem cell research, isn't there a large disconnect here? Harris thinks it is wrong to treat human beings like farm equipment (presumably because human beings have some moral worth) yet he thinks it is terrible for Christians to oppose the intentional killing of human beings for the purpose of using their parts in research and he claims this is an explicitly religious reason.
On page 3, Meacham asks Harris a question which I don't think he answers.
I'm not seeing a source. He says religious books aren't his source, he's not a moral relativist, some things are bad and we can teach morals to children without relying on religious books.
So why are compassion and empathy are objectively moral? Why aren't enmity and hostility morally correct impulses? What is Harris' source for his view? Does he have a source or are these claims merely based on his feelings? And if so, then why are his feelings any better than the feelings of someone else who believes malice and hate are more moral than kindness and love?
At one point Harris condemns treating humans as farm equipment:
We got rid of slavery because we realized it was manifestly evil to treat human beings as farm equipment. As it is.At another point, he claims that Christians not funding embryonic stem cell research for religious reasons is terrible.
Putting aside Harris' apparent ignorance about the millions of federal tax dollars which are provided to human embryonic stem cell research, isn't there a large disconnect here? Harris thinks it is wrong to treat human beings like farm equipment (presumably because human beings have some moral worth) yet he thinks it is terrible for Christians to oppose the intentional killing of human beings for the purpose of using their parts in research and he claims this is an explicitly religious reason.
On page 3, Meacham asks Harris a question which I don't think he answers.
Sam, what are the secular sources of an acceptable moral code?
HARRIS: Well, I don't think that the religious books are the source. We go to the Bible and we are the judge of what is good. We see the golden rule as the great distillation of ethical impulses, but the golden rule is not unique to the Bible or to Jesus; you see it in many, many cultures—and you see some form of it among nonhuman primates. I'm not at all a moral relativist. I think it's quite common among religious people to believe that atheism entails moral relativism. I think there is an absolute right and wrong. I think honor killing, for example, is unambiguously wrong—you can use the word evil. A society that kills women and girls for sexual indiscretion, even the indiscretion of being raped, is a society that has killed compassion, that has failed to teach men to value women and has eradicated empathy. Empathy and compassion are our most basic moral impulses, and we can even teach the golden rule without lying to ourselves or our children about the origin of certain books or the virgin birth of certain people.
I'm not seeing a source. He says religious books aren't his source, he's not a moral relativist, some things are bad and we can teach morals to children without relying on religious books.
So why are compassion and empathy are objectively moral? Why aren't enmity and hostility morally correct impulses? What is Harris' source for his view? Does he have a source or are these claims merely based on his feelings? And if so, then why are his feelings any better than the feelings of someone else who believes malice and hate are more moral than kindness and love?
Tags:
Monday, April 02, 2007
Online Federalist Debate on Abortion
It's between Wendy Long and Jennifer Brown . There's nothing exceptionally new here. Pro-choicer tries to link abortion and contraception, wonders if prolifers would provide legal punishments for women who have abortions, says acorns aren't oak trees, and hails abortionists (be they doctors or not) as "heroes." Prolifer discusses how the "health" exception is meaningless, abortion policy should be decided by the people, Roe v. Wade is an absolute joke, and how the unborn are living human beings.
In her closing, Jennifer Brown did come up with a new term I've never seen before to dehumanize the human zygote: "Post-conception germ of life."
In her closing, Jennifer Brown did come up with a new term I've never seen before to dehumanize the human zygote: "Post-conception germ of life."
Tags:
If embryonic research is so promising, why do its backers need to lie?
David Freddoso asks a question I've been wondering about for a while though I'm guessing some of the factual errors on the part of some of politicians are based largely on ignorance and not necessarily intentional deception.
Life Links 4/2/07
If the unborn aren't living human beings, then why do some people think requiring women to view them before having an abortion is "emotional manipulation?" If the unborn, as we've been told by the pro-choice movement for decades, are merely "clumps of cells" or "products of conception" then what's the big deal about showing an ultrasound to pregnant women who are considering an abortion? Would it be "emotional blackmail" if the law required me to view a picture of my ____ (wisdom tooth, appendix, tonsils, etc.) before removing it?
Rebecca Taylor points to an article in which leaders of various religious groups lend their opinions on interspecies cloning. Pastor Ric Olsen has a great concluding paragraph:
Amber Abreu, the teenager in the Boston area who used misoprostol to self-induce an abortion at 25 weeks, was interviewed by the Eagle Tribune.
Rebecca Taylor points to an article in which leaders of various religious groups lend their opinions on interspecies cloning. Pastor Ric Olsen has a great concluding paragraph:
Though curing disease is a noble cause, it can never take precedence over who the cause is attempting to cure. The end-game is not to merely cure diseases, but to improve human life. We cannot improve our lives if in the prevention of disease we have destroyed human dignity.
Amber Abreu, the teenager in the Boston area who used misoprostol to self-induce an abortion at 25 weeks, was interviewed by the Eagle Tribune.
"I felt bad because I knew she was suffering," Abreu said. "I felt guilty for what I had done. At that moment, I'd have done anything to let her live.
"I was hysterical when she died. I hugged her and kissed her," said Abreu, her eyes filled with tears.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Friday Niece Blogging
Dogs think little kids are great when they sit in their high chairs and spill food on the floor but I think a dog's opinion might begin to evolve when the kids begin use them jungle gyms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
