Just a Thought

Yesterday, President Obama singed an executive order which allows more embryos to be available for research and allows more taxpayer funds to be used for this.  Obama says, “And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.”  However, until the embryo is either implanted or destroyed, the process is the same.  Stem-cells are used to clone stem cells for just over a week.  Once the embryo is filled primarily with stem-cells, the embryo can be placed into a surrogate mother to bring the life to full term or the life can be terminated in order to use the stem-cells for research.

His stated reason for making the order is that this research could, “possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions.”  To Obama, the ends justify the means.  He could have been blunt and said, “if we have to kill humans at the embryonic stage to cure people, then those are acceptable losses.”  Would he have said the same for a newborn however?

Imagine six children who all had difficult diseases.  One has dual kidney failure, another’s liver is not functioning, and a third has a defective heart.  If we continue and know that a fourth has ocular degeneration, a fifth has underdeveloped lungs, and a sixth is born without a pancreas.  If a healthy seventh child is born and is a perfect match to the other six, can we kill the child and portion our her parts for transplant to save the other six?  Why not?  This is similar to embryonic stem-call research.  Could we at least take the new born and kill it to perform tests?  If not, then why is killing embryos acceptable?

Tags: Thoughts by strider
No Comments »

Today President Obama signed an executive order allowing the Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.  His declaration is wrong on many levels.

On an economic level, is now the time to spend even more taxpayer money on research that has strides being made already with adult stem-cells?  Especially since private companies will garner the financial gain from my money’s investment.  He mentions, this research could, “possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions. To regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair. To spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles. To treat Parkinson’s, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.”  Right now, adult and umbilical stem-cells are being used to treat these diseases so it is unnecessary to increase spending to pursue another avenue?

On a moral level, he did not comment on the true moral issue here.  He did not say that embryonic life is not human life.  If it is human life, then he probably could not in good conscience sign the order.  If it is not human life, then why the big speech?  Just say, “science has shown that a human embryo is not human life and so stem-cell research is justified.”  The problem for him is that he cannot truthfully say this.  A human embryo is human life.

On a logical level, he fails as well.  Obama says, “And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.”  First of all, in order to clone for research, a scientist follows the exact same steps as a scientist trying to reproduce life for cloning.  The difference comes in the end result.  In reproductive cloning, when the embryo reaches maturity, it is placed into a uterus.  In stem cell research, when it reaches maturity, it is destroyed for experiments.  The process is the same, one must clone humans to do embryonic stem-cell research.  However, he did not mention this and he either does not understand it or he is counting on us not understanding it.

Secondly, he says that reproductive cloning is, “dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.”  Can I ask why?  Couldn’t it lead to better humans?  More productive humans?  Why does he think it is wrong?  The only reason I think he believes it is wrong is because the public opinion polls tell him so.  There really isn’t another good reason to think that this type of cloning is wrong and therapeutic cloning is not.

Obama says he is not playing politics and yet he is.  He said, this order, “is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”  By spending taxpayer funds (read government money if you are a liberal) on this science, he is supporting this science WITH and THROUGH the government.  How is this a separation?  He has done the opposite of what he said yet again.

Surprise!

Tags: Thoughts by strider
No Comments »

I would like to be one of the first to endorse a proposition for the November 2009 ballot which would reduce the age for marriage without parental consent to 14.  As someone who has worked with high school students for 20 years, I have found them all to be bright, articulate, stable, and extremely mature people who can handle almost any situation.  If we are truly going to call ourselves a nation that supports the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens, we must take action now.

It appears Californians have spoken for a third time to preserve the rights of 14 year-old girls to have abortions.  Without this protection, children may run away from home, leave the state, or commit suicide because they are afraid of their parents’ reaction to their pregnancy.  The same is true with the love between a 14 year-old and his or her partner.  Children have left home and committed suicide over the inability to be with the one they hold so dear to their hearts.  Remember Romeo and Juliet?  Never mind that a 14 year-old cannot get her ears pierced, go on a field trip, or go to a tanning salon without parental consent, we need to protect the rights of these children to have surgery or commit in matrimony without fear of their parents.  Both matrimony and abortion are life-changing choices, yet obviously young teenagers have the ability to make these difficult decisions in a responsible manner.  Without the ability to be married without parental consent, who knows the lengths these extremely bright and mature children may leap to in pursuit of marrying the person they love.

My fellow Californians, this is the time to act.  This is the time to protect rights.  This is the time for change.  Support the rights of life and liberty for children.  Support the youth of America and their choices.  Support teenage marriages.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts by strider
No Comments »

As a fiscal conservative, and a believer in the power of a free market economy, I do not appreciate utilizing tax payers’ money to purchase and bail out companies.  Seizing an 80% share in AIG is a move in the wrong direction.  It is illogical to force me to pay for numerous mistakes made by AIG and other insurance mortgage brokers or to raise the dept to pay the mortgage of irresponsible homeowners (who knowing the risks involved, still signed mortgage agreements).

The founding fathers did demand that a constitutional government would, “protect the general welfare,” but we have gone way past this in the last eight years.  This latest step towards government ownership (pseudo-socialism) is disturbing and frustrating.  AIG spends $100 million dollars to sponsor Manchester United during a four year period, and now taxpayers come to their rescue?  I do not think the Fathers had this in mind.  At least we should demand the Manchester United sponsorship be changed from AIG to USA.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts, sports by strider
1 Comment »

8-8-08 is a day to commemorate one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Red Sox player in history.

He may not have been the best hitter (Ted Williams), or the greatest outfielder (Lynn or Crisp), but as a player, a gentleman, and a representative, he may well be unsurpassed.  The last player to hit for the triple crown, number 8 was a leader for the Impossible Dream season of 1967.  Yaz hit more than 450 home runs and 3000 hits with the Red Sox (one of only 7 players in the history of baseball to hit for these numbers), and he handled the media with humility and class.

Oddly enough, this date comes just a day after the anti-Yaz, Manny Ramirez, is being investigated by baseball.  Although they both played the same position at Fenway, and Yaz has two World Series rings less than Manny, Yaz will always be more than twice the Red Sox player Manny ever was.

In the history of baseball, Yaz ranks 2nd in games played, 3rd in at-bats, 6th in hits, as well as 8th in doubles and total bases.  These stats from a classy leader and player most fans around the league have never heard about.

Today is the appropriate day to be thankful that our number 8 is Yaz!

Tags: Thoughts, sports by strider
No Comments »

In his article of May 27, A Matter of Law and Rights, Richard Larsen states, “the fallacy here is in believing that morality is an absolute. It has never been and never will be an absolute.” Larsen’s problem is he makes moral judgments throughout his article. He attacks religious people and conservatives for being, “misguided,” “part of groupthink,” tyrannical, and extremely prejudiced. If there are no moral absolutes, then from what basis does Larsen make these claims? Why are they wrong while he is right? His diatribe simply equates to writing, “go Dodgers, boo Angels,” since he is making a moral statement and there are no moral absolutes.

Larsen proclaims slavery, suffrage, and interracial marriage are examples of change in American morality. This is odd, since if he simply touts change, then we could return to racism and bondage without being wrong because there are no moral absolutes. On the other hand, if he wants to cite these as examples of moral progress, it is equally strange. If there are no moral absolutes, there can be no evolution, there can only be change. In order for progress to be made, there must be a goal. Without moral virtues, there is no goal to attain to and there is only change, not progress. Larsen also writes, “if people cannot see errors in their thinking,” but if there is no absolute morality, then what counts for errors? In fact, what would Larsen say if the 13th Amendment (outlawing slavery) was repealed? He would be unable to say it was right or wrong to do so since there are no moral absolutes.

Lastly, Larsen claims, “the will of the people stops the moment it infringes on the rights of others.” This sounds very noble, but even he admits, “just as one man’s freedom of speech stops at the door of another.” What is he trying to point out? Each person has the rights as long as they stay out of other people’s business is great, but we arrest people for animal abuse even if it takes place in the privacy of their own home. The will of the people can raise my taxes and that not only kicks down my front door, but busts open my bank.

It is difficult to understand Mr. Larsen’s (lack of) logic. He claims some people are horrible, while claiming there are no moral absolutes. He desires morals to improve, but since there are no moral absolutes, they cannot. He wants the voters to stay out of each others’ homes, yet there are evils for which he would (I assume) demand people be arrested. I do not know if Mr. Larsen is right or wrong, but neither can he if there are no overarching morals.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts by strider
No Comments »

The California state supreme court invalidated a law (approved by the voters) which limited marriage to a, ‘union between a man and a woman.’ I understand the purpose of the court is to ensure laws which are passed, even by the voters themselves, comply with the Constitution and legal precedent, but I also thought their decisions should comply with the laws of logic.

One of the basic laws of logic is the law of identity, A=A. this is meant to show that each thing has is own essence or its own identity. Therefore, if what we define as a union between a man and a woman
is marriage, then anything else we call marriage should share the same essence. Homosexual unions do not. If marriage is defined, as it has been for thousands of years, then to call a new type of union a new name is more than reasonable. Should we have started calling telephones “telegraphs” because a lot of people like that name and we wanted people to accept telephones? No, because they are not telegraphs. The main reason to call homosexual unions marriages is to make them feel better. It is philosophical, not practical.

I know courts are being accused of redefining laws, but redefining logic? Probably not a good policy for them to pursue.

Tags: Thoughts by strider
No Comments »

I saw Ben Stein’s movie expelled this week. I thought that in general it was very interesting. If you do not like a philosophical documentary, you may not enjoy it. It is certainly a piece of propaganda, and some of the claims of ‘expelled’ professors and writers may be a bit exaggerated. But there are some very interesting points he makes, and in general, it was well done. Some general thoughts:

1. I hope his main point is not lost. The point of the movie is that the debate between Intelligent design and evolution is over the interpretation of the data, not necessarily the data itself. Since there is agreement on most of the data, it is the interpretation of that data which is up for grabs. This being the case, the ID-evolution discussion is a theoretical one. Stein’s point: the discussion in educational institutions should not be one sided.

2. Some may get lost in the discussion over Nazism. However, it does show the rational end (eugenics) to consistent naturalistic-darwinistic thinking.

3. Here is an argument to consider:

A. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design
B. It is not due to physical necessity or chance
C. Therefore, it is due to design

There are no other options to A

There are scientific reasons to support B

It could be said that since the science is agreed upon, then the science classroom is not the place for the debate. It should be in the philosophy department. However, when other theories of science (quarks and dark matter for instance) were theorized, these discussions on the interpretation of the evidence were held in the science classroom as well. So why not this one? Obviously because one of the viable options has a theological attachment, it has been excluded.

I just saw a debate in which atheist Peter Singer dismantled Christian Dinesh D’Souza. It was not on the basis of facts, but on the basis tactics and ability. At any rate, Singer says we should not denounce atheism simply because it leads to subjective morals. If something is correct and but it leads to undesired ends, it is still correct. To quote Singer’s own words, “sometimes things are true, even if we do not like the consequences.” Maybe the atheists should take a page from one of their own and open up classrooms to discuss the interpretation of the data even if they do not like the consequences of the truth.

Tags: Thoughts by strider
5 Comments »

In his editorial, “Misreading U.S. society,” Richard Larsen himself misreads the Pope. I am not a Roman Catholic, but I am a Philosopher, and Larsen not only allows his presuppositions regarding religion to cloud his arguments, but also makes logical fallacies himself. I will only touch on a few due to space, I am leaving out at least two.

Pope Benedict XVI is quoted as blaming secularism as the cause of a, “growing separation of faith from life.” Larsen translates this to mean, “secular society must always take a back seat when a religion decides its moral and social beliefs must take precedence.” In a number of ways, Larsen simply misses the point. His ‘translation’ is a non sequitur. The Pope, from this and other comments he has made, means that people should live out their faith. In other words, if Americans believe something, they should act upon it. Why would he criticize that?

The Pope is later quoted as saying, “overcoming every separation between faith and life, and countering false gospels of freedom and happiness,” is one of the goals of religious belief. Larsen criticizes this as being un-American. But is it? Everyone’s belief, in a god, in humanism, in atheism, or in themselves, should be consistent with their actions. No one has the right to unbridled freedom and happiness. Besides that, to trade in your beliefs for freedom or happiness is not at all honorable.

Larsen states, “[i]f people are making choices in life that a religion feels go against faith, the fault does not lie with secular society, but with that religion.” Here, both the Pope and Larsen are incorrect, but Larsen’s view creates a straw man while Pope Benedict’s does not. Secularism may indeed contribute to inconstant living, but it is certainly no the cause. The Pope seems to put too much blame on society and not enough, from what is quoted by Larsen, on the individual. However, if an individual is living an inconsistent life, it is also not a religion’s fault. For instance, if a man believes adultery is wrong, but goes out and commits it anyway, how is that the fault of religion? Christianity made me do it? Hinduism forced me to compromise? I cannot be the fault of religion. Either way, it is still the husband who has made the choice, not religion or secularism. And, if the husband commits adultery, we also assume he has rationalized his actions or changed his beliefs.

The largest mistake Larsen makes is justifying humanity’s propensity to believe one way and act another. It seems as though all of us should seek to grow in consistency between our beliefs and our actions. Most would call this integrity or character. If I believe in atheism, then I should act consistently as I follow the outspoken leaders of my ‘faith.’ If I believe, as atheism does, that this life is all there is, then should I not act in a manner that will bring me happiness? It would be inconsistent to do otherwise. So why does Larsen promote an incongruency between beliefs and actions? I assume the writing of his editorial is in line with his beliefs. If he believes the Pope is correct and writes the article, this would be odd. I can only suppose, from reading his piece, that Larsen truly believes the Pope is wrong. At least that is the way the editor is acting.

Tags: Politics, Thoughts by strider
No Comments »

A little list compiled in class at my request this year.

Tags: Thoughts, Wisdom of the Word by strider
No Comments »