The NYT letters are just as asinine as usual, particularly this one. Let's take a look:
That the Republican-controlled Congress may overturn abortion rights...
First of all, until you can explain how abortion is a "right," keep this ridiculous regurgitated talking point to yourself.
...under the label of being "pro-life" (Political Memo, Dec. 2) is offensive.
How dare they express their opposition to murder by calling themselves pro-life! What is this horrible world coming to?
These conservatives stop being "pro-life" as soon as the baby takes its first breath.
So you admit that it is a baby? Interesting...
Then their support shifts to those who pollute our air and water...
And I'm sure they do it for the specific purpose of destroying the environment. After all, if they had good intentions, they wouldn't be Republicans, right?
...start ill-conceived wars...
As opposed to staying isolated and hoping the terrorists can't find us, yes.
...supply assault rifles to criminals...
All right, this is, without a doubt, the stupidest thing I have read in the last week. Can anyone explain how it's possible to believe that Republicans want to "supply assault rifles to criminals?"
No, really. Someone tell me how this can happen. I've heard the "lifting the assault weapons ban would make criminals more dangerous" meme, but this is the first time I've heard that Republicans believe in actually giving assault weapons to criminals. And I thought conservatives took criticism for being too tough on crime. Was I ever wrong about that...
...and limit lifesaving stem-cell research.
When? There's no limit on researching the kinds of stem cells that have actually saved lives.
I long for the day when "pro-life" is defined as what happens after that first breath.
And I long for the day when "logic" is a requirement for getting a letter to the editor published.
How can these people exist? I don't think it'll ever make sense...
Posted by CD on December 6, 2004 02:17 AM"...and limit lifesaving stem-cell research.
When? There's no limit on researching the kinds of stem cells that have actually saved lives."
But, dontcha see? It's a limit because the Federal government isn't paying for it! They're also not paying for my pizza delivery and are therefore limiting my access to Nirvana!
Pleeeease give me more government pizza...!!! :(
The funny part, really, is that the "assault weapons ban" didn't actually ban assault rifles. Ahh, but saying "we're banning assault weapons" SOUNDED good, which is all that matters to the Left.
Posted by: CavalierX at December 6, 2004 10:31 PMI can pick any rebuttal to the Ny Times Letter you made and show that you are the illogical one, not the writter. For now i will choose the that you said "is, without a doubt, the stupidest thing I have read in the last week". You said yourself that you have heard the "lifting the assault weapons ban would make criminals more dangerous" Isn't lifting a ban on something, in effect, supplying it to the consumers. So, i don't know why you can't understand that. Obviously, this person is biased and choose to use supply as her slanted more. Furthermore the the sentence is used for more active writing, "supply weapons to criminals" as opposed to breaking the parrallel structure and saying "lift weapons bans so that criminals have easier access to them", which is more passive.
Posted by: tyler newman at December 7, 2004 01:41 AMTyler, I'm having a hard time understanding your broken English, but I'd just like to point out that there is a difference between lifting an unconstitutional ban and actively arming criminals.
In any case, you basically refuted your own argument by admitting that the "writter" used exaggerated claims. I believe that deserves a...
*Golf clap*
Posted by: CD at December 7, 2004 02:13 AMYou are right, my writting was very choppy. Sorry about that, i wrote in a hurry and didn't bother to reread it. I am guessing since you understood what i was saying that i don't need to go back and correct mispelled words like "chose" instead of choose and "that" instead of the that would make the sentence flow correctly.
About your reply, i think that is an excellent rebuttal and i strive to use your techniques. I particularly like "I believe that deserves a... golf clap". Anyways, if you are interested in the subject and wouldn't mind reading the views of 16 and 17 year olds, here is a forum where my highschool friends debate the same issue on the assualt weapons ban being lifted. It starts with the third comment on this page made by me, tylerjnewman, http://rhstrack.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=129&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
Posted by: tyler at December 9, 2004 01:55 AMAgain from the dictionary:
"right" -
in conformance with justice or law or morality
Currently, women have the "right" to an abortion. It is in conformance with justice or law (or morality, though perhaps not to some people). Still, logical disjunction dictates that it only has to be in conformance with one of these things to be considered a "right." So, yes, a republican-controlled congress could take away that right, by making it unjust and illegal. Our letter-writer's use of the word is absolutely correct.
"How dare they express their opposition to murder by calling themselves pro-life! What is this horrible world coming to?"
In context, I think she refers to her next sentence: people calling themselves pro-life and then sending kids off to kill and die in other countries. I believe her argument could be summarized as, "these people are not pro-life, they are pro-embryo. As soon as it's not an embryo, they don't care much if it lives or dies." As such, the label 'pro-life' does seem a bit ridiculous.
"So you admit that it is a baby? Interesting..."
Well, she did say as soon as it takes its first breath, it's a baby. I'll save my own views on the issue for another time, perhaps.
"And I'm sure they do it for the specific purpose of destroying the environment. After all, if they had good intentions, they wouldn't be Republicans, right?"
She never said that was their sole intent. She simply said their support shifts to people who do this. She never said, "their support shifts to polluting/destroying." See, you're giving her direct intentionality here when she is not doing so to republicans.
"As opposed to staying isolated and hoping the terrorists can't find us, yes."
Assymetric warfare is a fickle beast. Taking Iraq hasn't helped us. Hopefully that's obvious. Terrorism really will never go away, it's been going on since man had enough of a brain to start wars. Heck, the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism against the British. It just so happens that the Americans won. As they say, the victors always get to write history...
I have to agree with you on the assault rifles bit, at least.
"When? There's no limit on researching the kinds of stem cells that have actually saved lives."
Actually, George Bush pushed for legislation limiting stem cell research in the United States (and it was passed). The funding cuts were part of it, yes (and to go into why this is a bad thing requires me to give a history of National Science Foundation. Perhaps another day, although you are free to look at all the good things this government organization has done for us since its inception). But there were two other key points: 1) no more embryonic stem cells harvesting from fetuses, and 2) no cloning of embryos for the purpose of stem cell extraction. Embryonic stem cells are better for research than umbilical ones, as they take less coaxing to develop into useful tissue. Probably, with time, umbilical stem cells could do everything embryonic ones do, but it will (as I said) take time, and a lot more money. I would consider this legislation a serious blow to medical research in the US...
Ohwell, enough for one night.
Love & Light,
Rowan
If I didn't have a psychology final to study for, I'd go into more detail, but...
Again from the dictionary:
"right" -
in conformance with justice or law or morality
Currently, women have the "right" to an abortion. It is in conformance with justice or law (or morality, though perhaps not to some people). Still, logical disjunction dictates that it only has to be in conformance with one of these things to be considered a "right." So, yes, a republican-controlled congress could take away that right, by making it unjust and illegal. Our letter-writer's use of the word is absolutely correct.
But since life was defined by the founders of this country as an inalienable right, why should a "right" that's more like a government-bestowed privilege trump it? Abortion advocates talk about a so-called right to abortion as if it's one of those inalienable rights, while abortion is legal due to a "right to privacy" that isn't even in the Constitution. I was talking about rights on a natural level, not an artificial, legalistic one.
"How dare they express their opposition to murder by calling themselves pro-life! What is this horrible world coming to?"
In context, I think she refers to her next sentence: people calling themselves pro-life and then sending kids off to kill and die in other countries.
In order to save the lives of innocent people, yes. I believe that's still pro-life.
I believe her argument could be summarized as, "these people are not pro-life, they are pro-embryo. As soon as it's not an embryo, they don't care much if it lives or dies." As such, the label 'pro-life' does seem a bit ridiculous.
As does the label "embryo" as applied to a living, breathing human being (and if you disagree, please look at an ultrasound).
"So you admit that it is a baby? Interesting..."
Well, she did say as soon as it takes its first breath, it's a baby. I'll save my own views on the issue for another time, perhaps.
I was taking advantage of some nebulosity in the writer's logic, so I'm not sure if that's entirely accurate...
"And I'm sure they do it for the specific purpose of destroying the environment. After all, if they had good intentions, they wouldn't be Republicans, right?"
She never said that was their sole intent. She simply said their support shifts to people who do this. She never said, "their support shifts to polluting/destroying." See, you're giving her direct intentionality here when she is not doing so to republicans.
But the earlier portions of the letter make it clear that she's trying to prove that Republicans don't care about human life, and by saying they support pollution, she's making it seem like they endorse it. Otherwise, they wouldn't support it, you see.
"As opposed to staying isolated and hoping the terrorists can't find us, yes."
Assymetric warfare is a fickle beast. Taking Iraq hasn't helped us. Hopefully that's obvious.
No, actually, it's not at all obvious how eliminating a dictator and building a democracy in the Middle East hasn't helped us.
Terrorism really will never go away, it's been going on since man had enough of a brain to start wars.
It should just be a "nuisance," right?
Heck, the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism against the British. It just so happens that the Americans won. As they say, the victors always get to write history...
Please point me to one instance of the participants in the Boston Tea Party killing innocent people, and maybe I'll understand how it's at all relevant to the present-day situation.
I have to agree with you on the assault rifles bit, at least.
Fine with me.
"When? There's no limit on researching the kinds of stem cells that have actually saved lives."
Actually, George Bush pushed for legislation limiting stem cell research in the United States (and it was passed).
Only research done by the government, if I'm remembering correctly. Private research is still open, and it's probably faster anyway.
The funding cuts were part of it, yes (and to go into why this is a bad thing requires me to give a history of National Science Foundation. Perhaps another day, although you are free to look at all the good things this government organization has done for us since its inception). But there were two other key points: 1) no more embryonic stem cells harvesting from fetuses, and 2) no cloning of embryos for the purpose of stem cell extraction.
And the stem cells that are making a huge difference are ADULT cells, hence my previous point.
Embryonic stem cells are better for research than umbilical ones, as they take less coaxing to develop into useful tissue.
Only if you ignore the method used to obtain them. I'd prefer to use the cells that don't require killing an innocent child.
Probably, with time, umbilical stem cells could do everything embryonic ones do...
Unless recent news stories were figments of my imagination, they're doing more than that.
...but it will (as I said) take time, and a lot more money. I would consider this legislation a serious blow to medical research in the US...
And I would consider it a victory for civilized Americans.
And now, back to psych.
Posted by: CD at December 13, 2004 01:59 AMOh man. That reminded me of the fisking of the un-fisking of the fisking of Algore's speech. Too compicated for me.
Posted by: Army NCO Guy at December 13, 2004 10:47 AMI have a visual demonstration for proponents of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. A side by side look at a weapon that was illegal to manufacture under the ban (but legal to buy and sell if pre-existing) here, and one that was 100% legal to manufacture under the ban here.
Look how different they are.
Posted by: BD at December 13, 2004 11:20 AMBD, the first picture is of an M-16, maybe an M-16A1 (the second version). The second picture is of an M-16A2 (the third version). The difference, which you can't tell by looking at them, is the -A2 only fires either single round or three-round burst. The original M-16, and I think the -A1, were fully automatic, and you could go through the whole magazine in about four or five seconds. The Army (and I think the rest of the military) scrapped the original because they felt it wastes ammo, i.e. you can keep Taliban Sam's head down with a three-round burst just as well as going full auto on him. Check?
As far as the issue at hand, I guess the people that crack down on assault weapons figured that if some psycho criminal has the original M-16, he can quickly spray a street or convenience store with 30 rounds. But that's not all that relevant, because it doesn't take all that much more time to squeeze off 10 three-round bursts, and most of those bursts will be closer to Psycho Criminal's intended targets. Fully automatic weapons are useless except for their designed purpose- scaring enemy soldiers into keeping their heads down, so they can't shoot back. If you try to rob a store with an automatic weapon, those last 28 shots will go through the ceiling. Unless you are competent enough with your weapon to keep the muzzle down, in which case you are smart enough to know that bullets are expensive, and you will put your weapon on burst anyway.
Well, that's my take. Hope it made sense to y'all. Wait... after proofreading, let me clarify something that sounded contradictory. The Army still believes in suppresive fire, we just don't use the M-16A2 for that. We have a lovely collection of higher-caliber machine guns that are much noisier and scarier.
Posted by: Army NCO Guy at December 13, 2004 11:46 AMArmy NCO Guy,
Speaking as Navy O-3 Guy, I know about the different variants of the M-16. What I was going for here was more a visual look at pre- and post-ban rifles to show that they aren't too different. Mechanically identical, really.
Addressing another point of your comment, I'm glad you mentioned automatic weapons, because many, many, MANY people believed that the AWB prohibited machine guns. If any of you are here... please know that such weapons have been heavily regulated since the 1930s, and still are today.
On your last point, about suppressive fire. Nothing like a .50 cal. Although I'm sure a Mk 19 might keep someone's head down too.
Posted by: BD at December 13, 2004 12:02 PMOh my.
That is way too much to comprehend during finals week.
Back to my psychology...
Posted by: Katherine at December 13, 2004 12:07 PM50-cal, hooah. Er... hoo-yah?
Posted by: Army NCO Guy at December 13, 2004 12:26 PMBut since life was defined by the founders of this country as an inalienable right, why should a "right" that's more like a government-bestowed privilege trump it? Abortion advocates talk about a so-called right to abortion as if it's one of those inalienable rights, while abortion is legal due to a "right to privacy" that isn't even in the Constitution. I was talking about rights on a natural level, not an artificial, legalistic one.
The constitution is just words on some paper. It is up to the courts to decide what those words mean. In Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decided abortion was okay. They can only do this if they think the right to an abortion does not contradict any other wording of the constitution. Hence, the Supreme Court ruled that a fetus is not a US citizen and is not given the protections that US citizens are given. In fact, a fetus would not even considered a human under this interpretation, since even 'killing' non-US citizens on US soil is illegal. One step further: a fetus is not even on par with a domestic animal, as dogs, cats, horses, etc have limited rights and protections from bodily harm (thank PETA).
In order to save the lives of innocent people, yes. I believe that's still pro-life.
Again, I believe her point is that there are solutions to some problems that don't involve killing (but I don't want to put words into her mouth, either, so we'll call this my followup). This is the view held by Conservatives regarding abortion: there are solutions to pregnancy that don't inolve termination (e.g. adoption). Similarly, and if they are really interested in preserving life, they should have explored alternative options regarding Iraq (e.g. noting that Iraq had no nuclear or biological weapons programs and gone from there to bring a peaceful democracy).
The Enemy is often presented as completely irrational and hell-bent on our destruction, but we have to realize that we appear the same way to them. Globalization has angered all of the Middle East, as the Arab world had their holy land taken away by the US (aka the League of Nations), then they were left in the dust by the new global economy. This latter point is really their fault, as they turned their governments into an extension of religious doctrine (which is what we're doing to ourselves over stem cell research -- remember the Dark Ages? They are coming to America!)
As a personal anecdote on Iraq, I was living in Turkey around the time that the latest Iraq war started. I met a young woman from Baghdad and we (naturally) started talking politics. Things weren't bad there, she said. In fact, compared to other Arab nations (like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia) things were downright peachy. She had a job as a computer science research, she didn't have to wear a burka all the time. For the most part, she could say what she wanted (speech isn't completely free anywhere these days, unfortunately) about Iraq, Saddam, and the world. Granted living conditions weren't what they are for the US middle class, but what could one expect with huge trade sanctions in place?
In short, the Arab world has as much right to be bitter as residents of Washington, DC have. Neither of us (the US nor Iraq/Afghanistan) are right, but there is still no doubt in my mind that there exists a diplomatic solution to the Iraq problem...or at least there did a few years ago.
But the earlier portions of the letter make it clear that she's trying to prove that Republicans don't care about human life, and by saying they support pollution, she's making it seem like they endorse it. Otherwise, they wouldn't support it, you see.
Again, she never says republicans support pollution, she simply says republicans priorities happen to align them with big polluters. Big polluters don't have to worry about environmental conservation, which is in line with the 'conservatives care more about letting business be free than about the environment.' I won't argue that point, but your interpretation is active environmental vandalism, hers is just apathy towards environmental preservation. In short, she'd make a much better politician...coming right out and saying something is a big no-no these days in a political context.
As for the stem cell points, you completely skirt the issue. Embryonic stem cells have shown huge potential for research. Neither you nor I are in a position to say whether adult cells are better than embryonic cells. Still, embryonic stem cells have been manipulated into more types of tissue (including nervous tissue) than adult stem cells thus far, and that lends some credence to them being more useful in the future.
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=2487
And I quote "[adult stem cells] have not been as versatile ESCs".
Again, neither of us are stem cell researchers, and all of the medical journals I find that back me up (and show that your Adult stem cells being more useful claim is bunk) could be biased, so perhaps we should leave this issue as it stands, until we both gain some first-hand knowledge of how cultures are manipulated and whatnot.
I will say this, though: Europe has far surpassed the US in stem cell research, which may mean a future of foreign pharmaceuticals raping and pillaging us over treatment costs. Payback sucks, but we'll have to live with it if we don't advance our own research.
And yes, Bush's plan does ban privately funded research on cloned embryonic stem cells. Feel free to read the bill (or just watch Bush's speech on the subject). I am sure that google will reveal both to you.
Unless recent news stories were figments of my imagination, they're doing more than that.
Feel free to point me to a reputable medical journal that says umbilical stem cells are easier to manipulate than embryonic ones. Again, I don't know much about stem cell research, but everything I have ever read (and I do have a graduate degree in biotech; admittedly that doesn't mean much, but I have read quite a few journals) indicates the opposite is true.
As for the rest, I'll only say:
- you can't build a democracy for somebody that doesn't necessarily want it
- note how the non-banned assault rifle has a teeny tiny clip? Yep, that was part of the assault weapons ban. When it was in place, clips were only allowed to hold 8 or 10 shots (I forget the number, feel free to look it up). Without, you can have a belt feed going into your Uzi. I guess that would be pretty useful for, say, hunting deer. (okay, that was a cheap shot, sorry).
I guess I could summarize Tyler's comments as:
Dont' want a gun? Don't get a gun.
Don't want an abortion? Don't get an abortion.
If we recognize that America is made up of a diverse population (and not just gun-fearing liberals), we see that the best option is to make guns legal, and those that are afraid of guns can simply not buy one (and/or move to New York, where all firearms are illegal except when carried by Peace Officers).
If we recognize that America is made up of a diverse population (and not just anti-abortion christians) we see that the best option for everyone is to leave abortions as a moral choice for each individual.
The legality of both simply opens up an instrument to evil (as defined by current US conservatives), neither of them force people to partake in that evil.
Love & (en)Light,
Rowan
"But since life was defined by the founders of this country as an inalienable right, why should a "right" that's more like a government-bestowed privilege trump it? Abortion advocates talk about a so-called right to abortion as if it's one of those inalienable rights, while abortion is legal due to a "right to privacy" that isn't even in the Constitution. I was talking about rights on a natural level, not an artificial, legalistic one."
The constitution is just words on some paper.
I'm glad you respect it so much.
It is up to the courts to decide what those words mean. In Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decided abortion was okay.
And many of us think that they were wrong, since they based the decision on a Constitutional right that doesn't appear in the Constitution. That's the issue here.
They can only do this if they think the right to an abortion does not contradict any other wording of the constitution.
You obviously have more faith in human motives than I do.
Hence, the Supreme Court ruled that a fetus is not a US citizen and is not given the protections that US citizens are given.
More precisely, they ruled that it was out of the realm of public policy. They didn't clearly define what a fetus is.
In fact, a fetus would not even considered a human under this interpretation, since even 'killing' non-US citizens on US soil is illegal.
You know, I agree with you, which is why I think the Supreme Court was extremely wrong in making that decision, so again, I don't see what this proves.
One step further: a fetus is not even on par with a domestic animal, as dogs, cats, horses, etc have limited rights and protections from bodily harm (thank PETA).
I hate to be blunt, but people used to say the same thing about blacks during the days of slavery, so clearly, they can be wrong about it. That's why abortion is such a vital debate.
"In order to save the lives of innocent people, yes. I believe that's still pro-life."
Again, I believe her point is that there are solutions to some problems that don't involve killing (but I don't want to put words into her mouth, either, so we'll call this my followup).
And my point is that those solutions were tried for 12 years and didn't freakin' work.
This is the view held by Conservatives regarding abortion: there are solutions to pregnancy that don't inolve termination (e.g. adoption). Similarly, and if they are really interested in preserving life, they should have explored alternative options regarding Iraq (e.g. noting that Iraq had no nuclear or biological weapons programs and gone from there to bring a peaceful democracy).
So what would you suggest? Should Bush have talked about it with Saddam over milk and cookies? Should he have used his psychic powers to figure out that our intelligence was inaccurate? Should he have said "pretty please," or something? Again, you have way more faith in humanity than I could ever hope to.
The Enemy is often presented as completely irrational and hell-bent on our destruction, but we have to realize that we appear the same way to them.
Since they're the ones who fly planes into our buildings and behead our citizens, I'd say your moral equivalence is more than a little disturbing.
Globalization has angered all of the Middle East, as the Arab world had their holy land taken away by the US (aka the League of Nations), then they were left in the dust by the new global economy.
Sucks to be them, then. They could try to solve the problem by means that don't involve cold-blooded murder. What a concept.
This latter point is really their fault, as they turned their governments into an extension of religious doctrine (which is what we're doing to ourselves over stem cell research -- remember the Dark Ages? They are coming to America!)
If you start spouting that "Jesusland" crap around here, you will be banned from commenting. Just so you know.
As a personal anecdote on Iraq, I was living in Turkey around the time that the latest Iraq war started. I met a young woman from Baghdad and we (naturally) started talking politics. Things weren't bad there, she said. In fact, compared to other Arab nations (like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia) things were downright peachy. She had a job as a computer science research, she didn't have to wear a burka all the time. For the most part, she could say what she wanted (speech isn't completely free anywhere these days, unfortunately) about Iraq, Saddam, and the world. Granted living conditions weren't what they are for the US middle class, but what could one expect with huge trade sanctions in place?
Are you seriously telling me that Saddam was a good thing for Iraq? You can't possibly be saying that. Have you checked out anything these guys have written? Because they seem to think Saddam was something of a prick, to put it mildly. I won't even refer you to the videos of Saddam's henchmen killing and mutilating prisoners. The shock might shatter your rose-colored lenses.
In short, the Arab world has as much right to be bitter as residents of Washington, DC have.
Seriously, tell me this is a joke, because I'm trying to figure out if I should laugh or cry.
Neither of us (the US nor Iraq/Afghanistan) are right, but there is still no doubt in my mind that there exists a diplomatic solution to the Iraq problem...or at least there did a few years ago.
Such as...? Enlighten me with your unparalleled knowledge of foreign policy, o great and powerful equivalator.
"But the earlier portions of the letter make it clear that she's trying to prove that Republicans don't care about human life, and by saying they support pollution, she's making it seem like they endorse it. Otherwise, they wouldn't support it, you see."
Again, she never says republicans support pollution, she simply says republicans priorities happen to align them with big polluters.
"Their support shifts to those who pollute our air and water" seems like a clear accusation of knowledge and acceptance to me.
Big polluters don't have to worry about environmental conservation, which is in line with the 'conservatives care more about letting business be free than about the environment.'
Or maybe conservatives believe that we can reach a balance, rather than bringing the economy to a screeching halt because a certain species of plankton might get hurt.
I won't argue that point, but your interpretation is active environmental vandalism, hers is just apathy towards environmental preservation.
Then she should've said "their support shifts to those who would rather make money than protect the environment." That's a lot less ambiguous.
In short, she'd make a much better politician...coming right out and saying something is a big no-no these days in a political context.
I won't even get into whose fault that is...
As for the stem cell points, you completely skirt the issue. Embryonic stem cells have shown huge potential for research.
And adult stem cells have shown huge results already.
Neither you nor I are in a position to say whether adult cells are better than embryonic cells.
You're sure acting like you're in a position to say so.
Still, embryonic stem cells have been manipulated into more types of tissue (including nervous tissue) than adult stem cells thus far, and that lends some credence to them being more useful in the future.
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=2487
And I quote "[adult stem cells] have not been as versatile ESCs".
Wow, one out-of-context quote, compared to an entire article which seems downright neutral. Those adult cells are sounding a lot more convenient and less risky after reading the thing, just harder to research. But this is America, so we should be able to figure something out that doesn't involve aborted friggin' fetuses.
Again, neither of us are stem cell researchers, and all of the medical journals I find that back me up (and show that your Adult stem cells being more useful claim is bunk) could be biased, so perhaps we should leave this issue as it stands, until we both gain some first-hand knowledge of how cultures are manipulated and whatnot.
Like I said, even the article you provided can lead to entirely different conclusions between two people.
I will say this, though: Europe has far surpassed the US in stem cell research, which may mean a future of foreign pharmaceuticals raping and pillaging us over treatment costs. Payback sucks, but we'll have to live with it if we don't advance our own research.
Europe does a lot of things, but again, this is a larger issue than competition.
And yes, Bush's plan does ban privately funded research on cloned embryonic stem cells. Feel free to read the bill (or just watch Bush's speech on the subject). I am sure that google will reveal both to you.
I'll have to look that up when I have more time, but I haven't heard much about it. And you do have to remember that Bush is allowing research on the stem cell lines that already existed, so you know where he stands and why.
"Unless recent news stories were figments of my imagination, they're doing more than that."
Feel free to point me to a reputable medical journal that says umbilical stem cells are easier to manipulate than embryonic ones.
I'm not talking about manipulation, but rather, application. See this article.
Again, I don't know much about stem cell research, but everything I have ever read (and I do have a graduate degree in biotech; admittedly that doesn't mean much, but I have read quite a few journals) indicates the opposite is true.
And like I said, your opinion depends on whether you're looking to be practical, ethical, or both.
As for the rest, I'll only say:
- you can't build a democracy for somebody that doesn't necessarily want it
I'm sure they'd rather have mass graves and starvation. Check out that blog I linked.
- note how the non-banned assault rifle has a teeny tiny clip? Yep, that was part of the assault weapons ban. When it was in place, clips were only allowed to hold 8 or 10 shots (I forget the number, feel free to look it up). Without, you can have a belt feed going into your Uzi. I guess that would be pretty useful for, say, hunting deer. (okay, that was a cheap shot, sorry).
I'll leave that for others, because I've shot nothing but .22s, and frankly, this isn't a huge issue for me anyway.
I guess I could summarize Tyler's comments as:
Dont' want a gun? Don't get a gun.
I think it's more complicated than that, but again, I'm concerned more with people who want to outlaw all guns, so...enough of this.
Don't want an abortion? Don't get an abortion.
Hey, I've got a better idea: Don't want a baby? DON'T MAKE A BABY.
If we recognize that America is made up of a diverse population (and not just gun-fearing liberals), we see that the best option is to make guns legal, and those that are afraid of guns can simply not buy one (and/or move to New York, where all firearms are illegal except when carried by Peace Officers).
Once again, even though I support gun rights, I think it's a little more complex than wanting/not wanting to be around guns in general.
If we recognize that America is made up of a diverse population (and not just anti-abortion christians)...
There are plenty of anti-abortion non-Christians as well. I hope you're not implying that opposition to abortion is based on religion alone.
...we see that the best option for everyone is to leave abortions as a moral choice for each individual.
No. No, we don't. Because abortion is a life and death issue. If it's just a "moral choice," so are murder, sexual assault, theft, fraud, and a host of other things that exist in both the moral and legal realm. I refuse to accept abortion as nothing more than a "choice."
The legality of both simply opens up an instrument to evil (as defined by current US conservatives), neither of them force people to partake in that evil.
I'm pretty sure that if you could talk to the "embryo" involved in abortions (which, by the way, has a working heart and a working brain), "it" would tell you that there's something being forced on it.
Nice try, though.
Rowan: Hope you read this, 'cuz good GRIEF it took a long time to type.
Okay. Points:
On the teeny-tiny clip: I am honestly ignorant of actual specific gun-control laws, so I can't say anything about what size of a magazine is legal. However, I CAN tell you that the 30-round mag shown in the first rifle can be used in the second, "legal" one. The magazines are interchangeable. Incidentally, it takes only a little skill and a little less work to transform that legal M-16A2 into a weapon that will go full-auto. But I guess that would make it "illegal"... but who would know until you used it?
CD pretty much covered the "whether or not abortion is murder" issue, but I'll throw in my 2ยข anyway. The whole question is really this simple... is a fetus (or embryo, doesn't matter to me) a living human? I have it on good authority that it is:
"I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb." -Jeremiah 1:5
Well, God said that Jeremiah (and by context, you, me, and everybody) was a person BEFORE they were even conceived. Stands to reason they didn't stop for nine months and become a peson again at birth.
But you don't believe in God, you say? Well, that's a toughie, and I'll pray for you, but that's another issue for another day. Okay, fine. If you don't wanna listen to God, at least pay attention to some very basic biology. CD covered this already; a fetus has brain activity and a beating heart. He/she will respond to light. Sometimes they even suck their thumb. What defines "alive"? If you can prove to me that a fetus is NOT a living human, then you will have shredded my whole case, but, well, good luck with that.
So. Since we've established that an unborn child is a living, thinking human, how can deliberately killing it (often by methods that can only be described mildly as torture) NOT be murder? If it's a question of "don't tell me what to do with my body", shouldn't it be legal for a parent to shoot their toddler because he won't stop hitting other kids? It's a nuisance, isn't it? What if someone's teenager was doing drugs? Shouldn't the parent have a right to kill them? After all, you know, "Don't tell me what to do in my house!"
Of course not. I had a hard time just typing those two questions- because for a parent to do that would be monstrous and evil beyond comprehension. So tell me what the difference is.
Kay I've about run out of steam on that issue. Moving on...
"they should have explored alternative options regarding Iraq (e.g. noting that Iraq had no nuclear or biological weapons programs and gone from there to bring a peaceful democracy)."
Sorry, I'm not high-tech enough for blockquotes or italics. Help?
Anywho. "They" did. For more than a decade. And if you honestly think that Iraq didn't have WMD programs by now, either this is the first right-wing blog you've ever read or you just choose to remain in denial about this. Please don't throw out the "Bush lied" meme, it's tired and weak. (You haven't- not saying you would- but if it crosses your mind, please don't.) True, we haven't found the WMD. Were they there at the time of the invasion? Beats me. Were they there prior to the invasion? Unquestionably. CD has written on this, and I have nothing new to add to the debate, so if you wanna know what I think, look around the blog. I second pretty much everything he's said on the issue.
Oh, and PLEASE tell me how you figure we could've turned Iraq into a democracy without taking out Saddam. Last time I checked, China, North Korea, and Cuba were all still dictatorships. They don't just go away- somebody has to either kill or militarily defeat the dictator. Show me one dictatorship that didn't change for one of those two reasons.
"The Enemy is often presented as completely irrational and hell-bent on our destruction..."
Um, they're not presented that way, that's how a lot of them ARE. "Irrational" is unfortunately an issue of perspective, but I'll address that... right... now.
"...but we have to realize that we appear the same way to them."
Okay. Maybe we do. But (hate to say it, but it's true) that's a problem with their perspective, not our foreign-affairs policy. If we TRULY were irrational and hell-bent on their destruction, well, how many nuclear missiles do we have just lying around? Enough to turn everything from Morocco to Pakistan into a sheet of glass. If they still think we're irrational, well, I probably can't persuade them otherwise. It's their perspective, and it's a matter, literally, of good and evil. Yeah, I said it. Evil exists, and if you can't turn it good, then you have to either kill it or render it impotent. It's a tough world, sorry.
"Globalization has angered all of the Middle East, as the Arab world had their holy land taken away by the US (aka the League of Nations)."
I guess my history is weak here, I honestly don't know what you're referring to.
As far as your friend who thought Iraq wasn't that bad with Saddam, good for her. Do you really think she speaks for the majority of Iraqis? How about the dead ones? There have been political prisoners in the gulags of Siberia that didn't have a pessimistic attitude toward things. Likewise there are idiotic millionaires living in the lap of luxury in the U.S. that think the world will end on Thursday. One person is not a Gallup poll.
All right, I do believe that was my longest comment ever. I'm all typed out. Talk amongst yourselves.
Posted by: Army NCO Guy at December 13, 2004 09:24 PMI just find it interesting that Rowan's Iraqi reference wasn't actually in Iraq when she said these great things about her country.
BTW, awesome comment, NCO Guy. I know we've already been through the "you need a blog" thing, but...
Seriously, dude. Nice job.
Posted by: CD at December 13, 2004 10:07 PMOh, and to make italics, do this:
<i>text goes here</i>
Man, that looks weird in the comment box. Friggin' HTML escape sequences.
As far as I know, blockquotes don't work in my comments, but you would do them the same way, except you would type "blockquote" in the greater than/less than things instead of "i."
Okay, that's it for me. Back to studying political science. Kinda ironic...
Posted by: CD at December 13, 2004 10:12 PMYou know, I agree with you, which is why I think the Supreme Court was extremely wrong in making that decision, so again, I don't see what this proves.
Since I have failed to convince you that your first point is logically unsound, I will make a last attempt in the form of a proof that would leave Saul Kripke smiling.
Proposition: If congress passes a law outlawing abortion, it will 'overturn the right' to abortion.
Proof:
Abortion is a right under the interpretation of the law at present (see Rights Lemma, below). If congress makes abortion illegal, it will no longer be a right under the law. Anything that was a right under the law previously, and is no longer a right under the law, is considered a right that has been overturned (in the words of the author of the letter). QED.
Rights Lemma:
Rights are never explicitly stated by the government in the US. For example, when I am legally in the United States (by visa, citizenship, or what have you), I have the right to walk down the sidewalk and chew bubble gum. This right is stated nowhere in the constitution. A body of laws places restrictions in the form of stating what people aren't allowed to do; it does not make explicit the things that residents are allowed to do.
Corollary:
When you quote her as saying:
" That the Republican-controlled Congress may overturn abortion rights..."
And then add,
First of all, until you can explain how abortion is a "right," keep this ridiculous regurgitated talking point to yourself.
It only proves that you do not understand what a 'right' is. I believe the Rights Lemma should provide adequate explanation of how this silly character attack is wrong, and how abortion is indeed a right.
And, for reference, I do have a great deal of respect for the jumbling of words on paper that is the US Constitution. More than most, I would suspect...my occupation is in government service to defend the United States against enemy attack.
I am also a realist, however, and I recognize that the words that make the constitution, while fixed, can have their meanings changed at the whim of the courts. The paper itself is meaningless without a judicial system to back it up. Indeed, doing away with the legislative and executive branches of the government would have little impact on American life (no new laws would be made, big whoop). Doing away with the judicial would mean free reign on the interpretation of the law, including (say) imposition of the death penalty against the smallest of crimes (under some interpretations, this would not be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Fortunately this is not the case under the current judicial system).
So put your money where your mouth is with your, "I'm glad you respect it so much."
Love & (En)Light,
Rowan
"I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb." -Jeremiah 1:5
"Fetuses aren't people." -- I read that in a book somewhere, too. Religious doctrine isn't taken as fact by everyone in the US -- in fact it is accepted by fewer and fewer US citizens each day. The latest census data shows that by the year 2042, less than half of US citizens will believe that quotation was ever said.
Ohwell, enjoy the rest of life. I have orders to ship out sometime this week to somewhere in Indo-China. I probably won't be on the 'net for the next 3 months. See you in April, if ever again. ;-).
Love,
Rowan
Rowan, I already explained that I'm not talking about rights in a "right to remain silent" sense, since the child has an inalienable right to life.
In any case, you still haven't proven why abortion should be a right even under the legalistic definition. As your last comment shows, you don't think that a fetus is a human being, so what is it? I'm sick of pro-choicers dodging this question.
Posted by: CD at December 14, 2004 12:01 PMA forenote- Blacklist won't let me use a word which describes a man sexually forcing himself onto a woman. So kindly ignore the dashes, I already wrote the point down and I'm not gonna change it because of Blacklist.
Anyway, the comment:
I have little knowledge of legality. But common sense must always be a factor. Laws that make no sense should not be laws, simple as that. The Supreme Court could up and decide one day that r-a-p-e is now legal. Does that make r-a-p-e any less wrong? Roe v Wade effectively made murder legal, but only within certain parameters. Just because something's "legal" doesn't make it a "right". Ask any elderly Jew who was in Europe during the early 1940's- ask them what they think of the "pure-blooded" peoples' "right" to drag them out in the streets and cart them away.
Oh, and yes, I am aware that I just compared the abortion issue to the Holocaust. There's a major difference though- at least those Jews had some chance to run or fight back. Very little chance, true, but what happened to the rights of the 40-million-plus kids that have been slaughtered in America? Where were they supposed to run to?
"Fetuses aren't people." -- I read that in a book somewhere, too.
Sure, and I read in a book that Communism is an intelligent form of government that, once started, will sweep over the entire world. I'm afraid you need to check your source and think real hard about whether it's credible. Yeah, sure, an atheist could make the argument that I would have to do the same to the Bible. Believe me, I have. This would just tie into my earlier comment regarding the presence of good and evil in the world. There is a difference between right and wrong, between the truth and a lie, whether people like it or not.
And CD made a good point. Since I've obviously put my entire argument into stating that unborn children are living humans... if they're not, then what are they?
More than most, I would suspect...my occupation is in government service to defend the United States against enemy attack.
I have orders to ship out sometime this week to somewhere in Indo-China. I probably won't be on the 'net for the next 3 months.
I'm guessing by those sentences that you're in some branch of the military. Obviously by my posted name I am too, and I hope you get there safe, are able to accomplish your mission, and get home. I am also currently... er... re-located, courtesy of the Army, and I understand. But hey- the military gets the Internet to the strangest places. So you might be able to keep up with all the wonderful debating here at good ol' SIT.
Posted by: Army NCO Guy at December 14, 2004 06:40 PMOpposing abortion doesn't slap us back to the Dark Ages. Surprisingly enough, it's progress. Even in ancient history, rulers advocated abortion as an early form of birth control.
Then there's the part of the Hippocratic Oath about not playing God that abortion doctors are legally and ethically permitted to ignore. Opposing abortion is avoiding hypocrisy.
Then somebody tries to promote abstinence (which, by the way, is 100% effective in the prevention of both pregnancy and STD's) and is attacked for promoting religion. Sorry, but I'm not buying it. How did religion even find its way into this issue?
Finally, I think this has been said before, but the case against abortion is simply cause and effect: if you can't deal with the effect (pregnancy), then don't engage in its cause (sex). The medical profession should not be called upon to kill in the name of irresponsibility.
Posted by: Alex D. at December 20, 2004 04:49 AMIt's a hell of a time to be where I am...guess you guys have heard about the tsunami by now.
I'm bushwhacked and heartbroken, with three things to say.
1) This is as per the never-answered, 'when is a baby/fetus/embryo a human and thus deserving of the rights afforded a human?' question. I'd say it's up to the mother to decide that. If she doesn't want the baby and has an abortion, *poof* no problem. If she wants the baby and someone punches her belly/does otherwise to kill it, she should have every right to take the suspect to trial for murder. I suppose some scientific standard would have to be created for pregnant women in comas, maybe I'll just say a flexible 'first trimester.' After that, it should be afforded some legal protection. Before that, it doesn't really have a brain or a beating heart anyway...
Certainly a fetus should have legal protection if it could survive being born at the moment in question, with only reasonable medical apparatus to make sure it survives.
Again, keeping abortion legal just goes with the liberal view of the least common denominator -- some sizable portion of the population will probably always think abortion is okay. Personally, I'd never have one if I was a woman, and I'd hope that my girlfriend wouldn't have one if I got her pregnant, but I realize quite a few people would like the option without having to go to Canada to exercise it.
2) For CD and NCO Guy - we didn't really 'strike first' with the arabs, but we did do a lot wrong with them. The Palestinian state formed around the end of WW1. By mid/end of WW2, tons of Jews were racing to Palestinian land. At the end of WW2, the League of Nations became the UN, and the UN was put in charge of handling increasing problems between the Palestinians and the Jews. The problems were (sort of) no-one's fault to begin with -- the Jews were running away from the Nazis to their old homeland (though honestly if you haven't lived someplace in a thousand years, I think you give up your claim), but the Palestinians had been there for a long time. Tensions rose after land disputes between the two got serious -- the UN decided to split the country in half, displacing a lot of Palestinians in the process. Naturally the Palestinians were none-too-pleased to lose their land at the decree of some external authority, and fighting and terrorist attacks started. The US decided to give arms and money to the Jews to fight the Palestinians. The PLO was formed, and the rest is, as they say, history.
For a fun thought experiment, imagine what would happen back in Syracuse if everyone in the city was forced to leave so the Onondaga tribe could move back in and have their old land on the lake. I'm sure the Syracusians would riot and protest too...collectively they've 'owned' the land for (guessing here, though I think it's at least) a hundred and fifty years. Then imagine the French (heh) gave rifles and broken wine bottles to the Onondagans, and they killed a bunch of the Syracusians during one of the Syracusians' protests. Think the Syracusians might have reason to be pissed at the French? Upon shaking my magic 8-ball, it reads, "My sources say yes." As France continues giving sharper and sharper jagged broken wine bottles to the Ondondagans, other Americans grow increasingly pissed at the situation. "Why is France giving the Onondagans weapons to kill Americans, when the Americans didn't start this thing?" they ask. Before you know it, one of them crashes a plane into La Tour Eiffel, and another into that new bridge of theirs. </analogy>
Replacing a few nouns in the last paragraph gives us our Middle East conflict with the United States...
As Sun Tzu would say, had he written a book on the subject, understanding why your enemy is fighting you is the key to peace.
3) I got in touch with my Iraqi lady again, just to ask her why she had left her home again (had asked her before, I'm certain, but between the Pilsner Urquells the night we met, and a few years between then and now, I start to lose track of things). Her response? UN sanctions meant no equipment for her to do her research. Apparently anything better than a 486 wasn't allowed in the country as the UN thought they could be used to do nuclear arms testing. 'lo and behold all she wanted to do was work on a theorem prover, nothing more than knowledge for knowledge's sake. Doing it legally in Iraq would have added a few years to her thesis, as she waited for the results to come back.
Well, hope all is well in the states. I may or may not read any responses, depending on our situation here. Has been fun chatting, in any case.
Ja matta,
Rowan
How can you say that the killing of a living being that is afforded legal protection is acceptable as long as a medical professional performs the act? Doctors are U.S. citizens and are subject to the same law as anyone else. Therefore, if a doctor kills a being that is legally given the right to life, he has committed murder. Likewise, the mother is also not above the law and cannot exempt another legally protected being's rights. By its inaction, the government has consented to murder.
Furthermore, abortion for "hard cases" is B.S., and the mother has no need to choose life or death in the event of rape or (this word -- thank the comment filter). The medical profession has already devised an alternative remedy with which I can agree -- the morning-after pill, which is good for up to 72 hours. It prevents conception, so a living thing does not yet exist. Sorry, but I don't see a woman taking longer than that to figure out that something has started growing inside of her.
Why is the morning-after pill not enough?
Posted by: Alex D. at December 31, 2004 04:17 AMOh, I forgot one other thing: what do you do with an abortion survivor? Read some of those stories and try to explain to me that abortion is not murder in cold blood.
- That person will have to live the rest of his life mutilated by the murder attempt.
- That person will eventually have to come to terms with the cold, harsh reality that his narcissistic mother wanted him dead.
Isn't the avoidance of cruel, devastating consequences just sound policy?
Posted by: Alex D. at December 31, 2004 04:49 AM
Where would it end? Aborting a fetus mostly-formed is bad, but taking the morning-after pill is okay, you say. How does the law distinguish between the two?
Let's consider a hypothetical future in which a pill to abort the embryo during the first week of pregnancy is created (the fertilized egg doesn't attach to the uterus wall for the first 5-7 days). Is that okay? How about the first two weeks? The first month? The first trimester? When does the embryo deserve protection?
What about date rape, when a woman might not even know it happened, and assumes that her missing her period is just a fluke for the first month? Indeed many pregnant women still bleed a bit after their first month of pregnancy, so she might not know for two months. What then?
There are a lot of what-ifs for the law and the moralists to consider, and the law generally likes to treat things as widely as possible. The Big Fear of pro-choicers is that abortion won't be an option at all, ever, which is why we fight so fervently to protect it. Banning one type could create a slippery slope, under which eventually the morning after pill would be illegal. Heck, you could even argue that condoms are immoral, since a sperm is potential life.
It may sound crazy to think that way, but for an example of similar behavior look at the NRA and the assault weapons ban. The assault weapons ban was ineffective, yes, but the bigger concern with gun owners is that an assault weapons ban could create exactly the same slippery slope towards denying ownership rights to all sorts of firearms. Handguns could be next, then rifles, then antique muzzle-loaders...
As for your abortion survivors, I have read such things before and am quite saddened by them. Still, where and when did they happen? One example you point to was in 1975 (two years after Roe vs. Wade), the other in 1977 in a small city in conservative Tennessee. The examples are unfortunate, but not surprising given the state of medicine and community attitude towards abortions at the time. While I can't say with any degree of certainty, as I don't work in the field, 'botched' abortions are probably a thing of the past. Indeed, I haven't known anyone to have the variety of abortion often depicted by its opponents...According to Fox News, 91% of all abortions performed nowadays happen in the first trimester (when the embryo/fetus doesn't have a differentiated brain, i.e. the brain is just a mass of nervous tissue and has no language, vision, or higher reasoning centers).
Posted by: Rowan McAllister at January 14, 2005 05:21 PM
