Wilding of the Intellect

More Octomoms on the Way

2009-03-09T10:48:00.002-06:00

Obama just issued a proclamation that the US government will start vigorously pursuing embryonic research. In this research, scientists will clone extremely large number of what are essentially human embryos. Each clone, if implanted in a fetus, would grow into a unique fully developed human.

The press is lauding this development as a triumph of science over religion. This partisan press fails to recognize the ethical nature of science. It also fails to recognize that obvious point that the statement that an embryo is not a form of human life is as much a statement of belief as the statement that it is. For that matter, the statement is an even greater leap of faith as fertilized human embryos that will be killed on a massive scale could all develop into humans if properly nurtured.

It is also interesting to note that Obama issued his fiat on a Friday and did it in ways to prevent debate.

In contrast there was substantial debate before, during and after Bush took his position.

To help fund Obama's vigorous effort to study fertilized human embryos, we are likely to see funds diverted from adult stem cell research. Pretty much all of the cures that people seek will come from adult stem cell research.

As you see, although people start as embryos, the embryonic stem cells quickly differentiates into adult stem cells which then create the various cells that make up our body. The cancers and diseases people wish to cure are pretty much related to adult stem cells.

The embryonic research vigorously supported by Obama (without public debate) is the research that will allow for bioengineered babies. This is where parents will be able to order themselves up an 8'6" basketball playing son.

Of course the main purpose of widescale embryonic research is so that schools can create political filters in universities. If a student hesitates to do experiments on an embryo then their career is over.

Driving ethics from of science is not a triumph for science.

This is What We Are Becoming

2008-08-15T17:32:00.003-06:00

Yes, the following is a prime example of what our public funded education system has become. Below is a sample of the people who define and dominate our culture from their priveleged perches on our nation's campuses:

Professor Bill Shanahan is the representative of Fort Hayes State University. You will find drones in his leaching off the public school system in colleges and high schools across this country.

Rich Theory

2008-06-17T14:43:00.002-06:00

Tired of all the negativity, I am trying to concentrate on affirmative themes.

I've popped up the first chapters of Rich Theory. The primary goal of the work is to show the type of reasoning that took place before the idiocies of the modern age.

The work starts with a short presentation of Rediscovery of Perspective at the beginning of the Renaissance.

The goal of the work is to show that classical liberalism was on a better track to providing widespread prosperity than the modern liberalism.

Anyone who is interested in the history of ideas, or who are interested in math, will like the work.

After the Floods ...

2008-05-25T11:22:00.002-06:00

There is often a surge in pregnancies after natural disaster and war ... like the Burmese typhoon. Post disaster baby booms often create problems for societies unequipped to handle the boom.

Add to that the evidence suggesting that our little planet has an overall problem with overpopulation, It makes sense to address family planning issues during a disaster relief effort.

I have to admit that the attempts to address the problem sound Orwellian, as Michelle Malkin points out.

The comments to Michelle's post seem to have concluded that the condoms are so the peacekeepers can rape the victims of the typhoon. Historically, when armies use rape as a weapon, it is to impregnate the women. The idea that the condoms are to facilitate raping is absurd.

Burma is a place full of easily exploited victims of a natural disaster. If done correctly, a family planning message is a good step to empowering people and helping them overcome the tragedy. Right after a disaster is the worse time to start a family. So, I am siding with the UN as it appears that they are acting responsibly on data from past disasters.

As Michelle Malkin points out, the UN must take great care in how it handles family planning message. A message about empowering women is taken well. If the program is perceived as eugenics or as an invitation for peacekeepers to take liberties with the victims, then it will backfire.

Affirmative Rationality

2008-01-29T14:40:00.000-07:00

Using negative tricks to win arguments tends to undermine discourse.

The point of this web site was to try and show that it is all the nasty tricks we use to win arguments (like redefining terms) that has led to this extremely shrill state of discourse.

This blog was only half hearted. exploring the negative itself is a half hearted activity.

To return to quality discourse, we need to spend most of our times re-inforcing the roots of reason. So, I am spending my time on a new site called Affirmative Rationality.

Ordering Plan B Online

2007-08-23T00:38:00.000-06:00

I am dismayed. I've dabbled in selling stuff online. I am not that good at it.

Anyway, I was just looking at a list of top selling men's products on Drugstore.com. The Plan-B Contraception was at the top of the list. I went to the contraceptive page on the store. Plan-B held the top position on the top selling contraceptive products page.

Only a moron would be shopping for "emergency contraception" online. Even with express shipping, a gal is pretty much guaranteed to be knocked up by the time the Fed-Ex man arrived with the pill.

The only reason a rational person would be ordering the product online is if they were planning on using Plan B as Plan A.

To do some more investigating: I clicked on the "Men" tab. I then clicked on the "Condom" tab. This pill intended for women was being marketed as a contraception for men.

BTW, I am not surprised to see a pharmaceutical being marketed to the wrong crowd and being misused. When you play games like trying to relabel an abortive as contraceptive, you are guaranteed to create a climate that leads to misuse.

I fear that some of the men who are buying Plan B online have targets in mind. As these people become a problem there will probably be a backlash against the pill and it won't be available by the rape victims who really need the product.

The Stem Cell Paradox

2007-07-04T14:06:00.000-06:00

The stem cell research debate is somewhat paradoxical. In most industries, it is the Left that demands government control and regulation, while the right is content for the government to let industry be. In the stem cell debate, the Left wants the world to launch forth on unbridled experimentation on human embryos with no debate about the ethics surrounding the creation and destruction of millions of human embryos for research purposes.

Yes. I did say millions of embryos. Most people arguing for unbridled stem cell research seem to imply that only one or two stem cells will go under the scalpel. Such pundits misrepresent the way science works.

Molecular biology works by repeating a large number of experiments on a large number of specimens a large number of times.

It is possible that we could see hundreds of millions of embryos being processed by an out of control industry if anyone were ever to invent a medicine based on cloning technologies.

My contention that an unbridled stem cell industry would process embryos by the millions seems to be supported by that the unbridled fertility industry has created the nightmare where there is over a half million embryos on ice. A case in point is the unbridled fertility industry that very quickly found itself with over 500,000 fertilized embryos in their freezer chest. My guess is that only a small percent of the embryos created by the fertility industry make into to the freezer.

I don't think there is anyone who wants a completely unbridled embryonic research. Such a monstrosity is neither good science, nor would it be all that good for mankind.

Science does not advance in a vacuum. In a healthy society, there is an ethical debate that accompanies the evolution of the technology. It is the ethical debate that keeps the science on track. It is the ethical debate that keeps science focused on human needs.

For example, the research on stem cells broadens our understanding of cancer. Many cancers are the result of stem cells gone wild. We can either use this stem cell knowledge to create cancer or cure cancer.

It is because of the ethical tradition in the medical community that doctors are more likely to use their knowledge to cure cancer rather than spread cancer.

It is possible for scientists to use knowledge gleaned from stem cells to harm others. Just as governments use biochemicals and atomic energy as weapons, I could envision a government weaponizing stem cells.

Science has a long history of bettering the situation of man because scientific development has traditionally occurred within a broader ethical framework.

The fact that the left seems intent on stopping the natural ethical debate that should accompany stem cell development is far more frightening than the technology itself.

The ethical debate is a necessary part of scientific advancement; So I find myself reluctantly applauding George Bush for trying to force the ethical debate with his presidential veto.

I used the adverb "reluctantly" in the sentence above because the presidential veto is not where the ethical debate about stem cell research should occur. If we were a healthy society, an ethical debate on this issue would be raging in the university, instead, the left has created such a climate of fear in the education system that we cannot engage in the debates that should take place.

The Utah Daily Chronical has an editorial by a Tiara Fuller who applauds Bush as well. I have a feeling that she will be shouted down.

The site Stem Cell Information site by the National Institute of Health has what looks to me like good information on Stem Cells. The primary goal of the Bush Administration seems to be to restrict research on stems cells that could be developed as a human being. That does not seem to me to be an unreasonable objective. The Bush initiative has all sorts of provisions for investigation and registering stem cell lines. If we had a healthy academic community, it would be possible to simply define objectives and rely on self policing efforts in the community. The calls for regulation and registration of stem cells seems a bit onerous.

In conclusion, the great stem cell paradox is that the desire to regulate is driven by conservatives, and not liberals. The actual burdens of the regulations don't seem to be out of line with regulatory efforts that come from the left.

On the reverse side of the paradox. If ever the left does decide that it is politically expedient to go after the stem cell or fertility industry, the industries will have a bear of a time. Of course, if the Left went after the industry, you would most likely see a paradigm shift where we fall back into the traditional pattern of the left attacking the industry and the right trying to argue for the industry's survival.

Happy Thanksgiving

2006-11-23T11:45:00.000-07:00

Happy Thanksgiving All!

I am thankful that the US is not like Iraq, yet.

Yahoo News reports massive bombing attacks in Sadr City. It is a terrible news to mar a day of Thanks giving.

Unfortunately, our politicians and professors seem to be doing everything in their power to make the US look like Iraq. I hope the people can figure a way out of the binding hatred that is oozing from the left and right in this nation.

I am thankful for the US Soldiers who are in Iraq trying their hardest to find a way to stop the violence. The tens of thousands of deaths that we've heard about on the news is horrible. The hundreds of thousands of murders that took place without being reported during the rule of Saddam was worse. The underreported genocide in Sudan breaks my heart.

Since the days that Hegel and Marx spewed their venom in ink, the west has been struggling with the question of how to deal with violence that comes from inherently violent ideologies. It may be that the only way to deal with these ideologies is to let their inherent violence play out in public.

The Leftist revolutions of the 20th century led directly to rule by genocidal thugs. The modern-Jihadist ideology (which is surprisingly similar to the ideologies of the left) leads to the same end ... rule by genocidal thugs.

The ideologies are compelling. We cannot stop them until the people who hold the ideologies see the result of their actions.

Even that doesn't seem to work.

I was mad at Bush of invading Iraq in 2003. I was mad because the current violence that we see was a predictable result of the Jihadist ideology and the Stalinist methods used by Saddam Hussein.

While I am mad at Bush for one bad decision. I am very proud of the Iraqis and US soldiers who are trying to find ways to establish a responsible, representative government in the county. Bush should be scorned for his bad decision. Bush was right that we would have to stand against radical Islam. The timing and choice of location was not perfect.

The fact that we have to deal with the results of our imperfection is called being humans.

Unfortunately, just like la Revolucion, the only way for the Jihad to end is for the people supporting the Jihad to realize that the Jihad simply leads to rule by thugs, just as the revolution leads to rule by thugs.

I am thankful that the Left (and its counterpart the reactionary right) has yet to turn the US into a place like Iraq. They are trying ever so hard. I hope we can get through the next decade with out degenerating.

O No, It's O Day

2006-11-22T22:12:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to file this under Dangers of Elevating Science to a Religion: (Drudge Report).

Apparently, a group of progressive activists have declared the Winter Solstice (Dec 22) Orgasm for Peace Day. As with most of the spittle that drools from progressives, the activists claim that Orgasm for Peace Day is more than an hedonistic orgy. It is science!

The group starts with the tired claim that Evolutionary Psychology has proven that war occur because baboons like George Bush are still in a lower evolutionary state than Progressives. We must hate George Bush, We must hate George Bush, We must hate George Bush, We must hate George Bush.

If we all hate George Bush with enough raw emotion; we might cause him to evolve.

The second part of the science is a belief that we can affect the randomness of the universe by all joining in a group action ... a group orgasm. This, apparently is especially important in places where people like George Bush built weapons of mass destruction.

Just on the side: Let's assume that these wanks are right and orgasming releases some sort of cosmic power that reduces randomness. How do we know that the result is something good? The slime buckets who engage in this event are likely to kill any life created from the group orgasm. There will also be a large number of people who will use the event to manipulate other people in a negative. Sounds to me like the cosmic energy produced from the event will be a negative hateful force ... and not a butterfly-loving force.

I don't want to reward these wanks with a link. I suspect that a large number of really disgusting males will use this crap to coerce young women to submit on Dec 22. Icky.

This idea that we can create world peace by orgasming is pure mindless superstition ... yet progressives claim it to be science.

I learned to hate religion in college. I wish people would see that the progressives who are trying to raise science to a religion are systematically creating something that is a thousand times worse than Christianity. The genocides done by the Nazis and Communists (both pseudo-scientific religions) were a thousand times worse than Christianity at its worse.

I still love real science. Historically, real science does better in a Christian environment than anywhere else. I think there is a great deal of merit in what Pope Benedict is saying about faith and reason. When you remove reason from faith, you get extremely oppressive religions, when you remove faith from reason, you get really icky, oppressive systems of systematic manipulation.

Can We Pull it Off?

2006-11-09T12:49:00.000-07:00

I watched an interview with Nancy Pelosi on the Newshour. She used the after election press time to call for a more bipartisan Congress and great communication within the Congress. Interestingly, in the interview, Magarite Warner had to restrain Pelosi from flying into a tyraid about the incompetent president and the challenges faced when intellectually superior Democrats have to deign to communicate with intellectually inferior Republicans.

I hope that Congress can break this current trend of nasty partisan bickering. I
even believe that Ms. Pelosi and Howard Dean are currently sincere in this call for an end to the partisanship that has ripped apart the Congress in the last several sessions.

For that matter, I believe that there is reason to hope that we can move beyond the partisan bickering. Many of the Democrats elected in this last cycle are true moderates who are in Washington to get a job done and are eager to engage in discourse. A good example of this new style democrat is the Blue Dog Coalition.

The problem that we face as a nation is that the system of discourse taught in schools is extremely mean, and extremely manipulative. We've been taught to win arguments by changing the definition of terms. We've been taught to divide people into classes, and we have been to place paradoxes and conflicts into the foundations of our system of reasoning.

The way that we've been taught to engage in discourse undermines our ability to engage in discourse.

In universities you often find people engaged in an orgy of group think. A person who does not share the group think will branded as being as the one undermining discourse, when it is, in truth, the group dynamic that is preventing discourse.

This current post election call for open discourse is very fragile. It is unlikely that Bush will give in to Howard Dean's or Nancy Pelosi's call to abandon Iraq. As Commander and Chief, the war is still primarily under the adminstration's domain. He is likely to accept ideas on how to win Iraq and to find ways to keep the country from transforming into a Vietnam style dictatorship (as we saw happen when America took John Kerry's advice and abandonned that country).

On Iraq, Bush is likely to be open to ideas, but is unlikely to engage in the group think shared by Pelosi, Dean and Reid.

I suspect that before we are far into this lame duck session, Pelosi will be heaving accusations at Bush that, because he does not share Pelosi's view of life, that he is undermining discourse. My guess is that if the direction of the Democratic Party is left entirely to Nancy Pelosi, what we would probably see is nothing more than a stab at conciliation, followed by efforts to frame the breakdown of bipartisanship on Bush.

The method works quite well. If you think outside progressive "group think", you get labelled as a contrarian unwilling to engage in discourse.

This method is absurd. Basically, if you do not come to all the same conclusions as the progressives, then you get accused of undermining discourse. This is absurd, because the whole reason for engaging in discourse is so that people can discuss different options.

Quality discourse does not lead to a situation where everyone thinks exactly the same. Quality discourse leads to a dynamic system where people have different ideas but are still engaged in pursuing a common good.

The Blue Dog side of the Democratic Party might be able to bridge the gap. This group will have to stand against the "group think" mantality of its own party leadership. As this group is looking for practical solutions, there is a small chance that they will succeed.

I hope that Congress really concentrates on improving the quality of discourse. My skeptical mind makes me think that we will have a very brief interlude of postering followed by attempts to blame the break down on one's opponents.

Research on Human Embryos

2006-11-04T16:18:00.000-07:00

The current political idiocies revolving around stem cell research provide an interesting example of the poor state of modern discourse. I've watched several newsports thst seem to intentionally confusing the definition of terms. For example I've seen "progressive" newscasters show a clip with a doctor talking about how now embryos are killed in adult stem cell research followed by a conservative talking about embryotic stem cell research. A viewer who did not know that the clips were about different things would agree with the smirking progressive newscaster that the conservative was a kook.

Embryotic Stem Cell Research is a very important issue that our society need to address. It is even one of those areas where we may be forced to put legal restrictions on how science proceeds with their research. For that matter, it is an area where I believe you would find the majority of scientists agreeing that we need guidelines and restrictions. I doubt there are many scientists who want their industry engaged in unbridled experimentation and destruction of human beings.

What is really bizarre in this current debate is that progressives (who are generally the first to jump up and down to demand regulations and socialization) are the ones opposed to regulations. Meanwhile the Conservatives, who generally oppose regulations, are the ones arguing that any experiments involved with the creation of people should be watched carefully, regulated, and maybe even prevented.

The fact that progressives are actively working to muddle and suppress debate about the beginnings of life is not that surprising if you are familiar with the dialectic. The technique of the dialectic is usually to use the extremes to regulate the center. For example, a progressive using Marxist Dialectics would use us monopoly laws to regulate the hotdog stand on the corner. To accomplish the goal of regulating the center from arguments about the extremes, you must first do whatever you can to muddle actual debate about what takes place at the extremes. For example, in the Plan B debate, progressives redefined the term conception arguing that conception takes place at implantation. This effort has muddled our ability to talk about the beginning of life.

Anyway, back to the stem cell debate.

The conservative concern is that an out-of-kilter research machine wants to fertilize embryos (make humans) specifically for experimentation. I suspect that there are some scientists who would love to do just this. However, I suspect that most scientists draw an ethical line here. It is likely that we need some sort of legal restrictions here as well. To understand this, we have to look a bit at the reproductive system again.

The way human reproduction works is that a sperm fertilizes an egg. This new cell is called a zygote or embryo. This embryo starts as a single cell. The amazing thing about this cell is that it can develop into any of the complex cells in our body.

A cell that has the ability to develop into other cells is called a “stem cell.” So we have some natural crossover of definition which complicates the debate. There is a type of cell called an adult stem cell. These are cells that we carry through our lives that retain a certain ability to divide into different type of cells.

Most of the cells in this earliest stage of development belong to this class of things called stem cells. Research on these cells is called embryotic stem cell research. In debating the issue, there needs to be a distinction between fertilizing an egg so that you have cells to research, and other methods of researching on embryotic stem cells. For example, I’ve read articles about procedures that extracted embryotic stem cells from the umbilical cord.

A second area of debate is about cloning. Once again, the terms we use are not perfect. Scientists use the term cloning at a cellular level to refer to the division of cells. Science fiction books and popular imagination associate cloning with armies of genetically identical beings. When politicians say the word cloning, they are generally thinking of walking, talking people.

Interestingly, one proposal to allay fears of creating a human cloning industry (walking talking clones) is simply prohibit implanting any stem cells (embryos) created from the stem cell research into female uterus. I find this interesting as it relates to the Plan B debate which tries to define implantation as the time when human life begins.

This system where you try to curb the fertilization of embryos coupled with a prohibition on implanting and taking embryos to term (growing them into people) provides an interesting beginning of an ethical foundation for this stage in the development of stem cell research. This two part methodology is a start to allaying the great fears that an uncontrolled research community will start creating millions of embryos for research purposes, and it is a start in trying to find ways to keep the industry from starting to produce genetically modified people.

This compromise, of course, is far from perfect. It leaves unhappy people on both sides of the debate, which is often a good sign. Some might argue that any form of cloning embryos to get stem cells involves dinking around with human life. In the case of an embryo, each cloned embryo could be brought to term as a unique living human. We actually see a natural form of human cloning with identical twins. Identical twins are identical because the zygote somehow splits after fertilization. The fact that identical twins appear to be two different does put a human face on this cloning issue. Were a research lab to whip up a vat with 100,000 cloned embryos, they would have 100,000 eggs in their brew that could become people.

Whatever laws we pass at this stage of embryotic research is likely to need modification in the near future.

Since it is impossible, at this point, to determine a proper ethical line to limit where experiments on early human life should stop, my Libertarian heart tells me that trying to pass a law in this area is bound to fail.

It would be so much better to live in a world where Doctors could do something like the Hippocratic Oath and work to set and adjust ethical standards on issues like the experimentation on human beings.

Unfortunately in this world where Progressives routinely manipulate the scientific community to achieve their political ends, we will caught in a trap where we cannot depend on a rational scientific community to abide by any scientific guidelines set by the scientific community.

We are really in a bad situation right now. The progressive community has politicized research on embryos to the point that I don’t think we can trust the scientific community to make good ethical decisions. Progressive politicians want to push the scientific community into as many controversial areas as possible to create a deeply divided emotional body politic that they will be able to manipulate as they desire.

Faith and Reason

2006-11-03T22:06:00.000-07:00

The blog Conservative Christian has an interesting post on Religion and Reason (I want to record the link for future reference). I used to hold the politically correct view that Christianity is nothing more than vain superstition, and that for society to progress we needed to wipe religion from existence.

I am now of the opinion that things are much more complex. My personal experience has shown that many of the people claiming to be progressive and anti-religion have an apparently irrational view of life. Conversely, I've known many people who were deeply religious, but were extremely rational.

Undoubtedly, there are some extremely manipulative and irrational religions. The statement that religious people are inherently rational is as wrong as the statement that all religious people are inherently irrational.

The more that people stand up and talk about the reasonable aspects of their religion is a good thing.

You've got 72 hours to stop this!

2006-10-16T10:13:00.000-06:00

This is interesting: Apparently, South Dakota ballot includes an extremely restrictive abortion law to challenge Roe v. Wade. This law does not even allow abortions in the cases of rape or incest.

The one extremely interesting feature of the law is that it allows emergency contraception (the morning after pill).

This blog has a long diatribe about the efforts of “progressive scientists” to redefine the term “abortion” to exclude the morning after pill. The morning after pill stops a pregnancy before the egg implants in the uterine wall.

My contention is that the process of redefining of terms to achieve political objectives undermines the debate on abortion. In the South Dakota debate, it is possible that the efforts to achieve widespread availability of “Emergency Contraception” might actually end up tipping the scales on this ballot initiative in favor of the pro-lifers.

The progressive scientists who’ve burned their political clout in efforts to redefine “conception” have effectively undermined efforts to keep abortion legal. Even worse, since Christian doctors and hospitals who have not been swayed by the redefinition of terms to keep EC available, we could see a world where women no longer have access to safe legal abortions, or the EC pill.

Doesn’t anyone else see this???? The efforts to win support for the Morning After Pill by redefining terms effectively undermines support for fetal abortions.

I did historical research on the abortion issues. The articles justifying abortion in the days prior to Roe V. Wade were premised on the idea that humans go through stages of development and that there is a large number of natural abortions in the earliest stages of development (specifically the embryotic stage). Assisted abortions are just an extension of this natural process.

Progressive scientists who drew a line in the sand and said that "abortion" only refers to actions taken after implantation destroyed their original justification for fetal abortions.

If I were a South Dakota pro-lifer, I would be harping up and down about how the Morning After Pill is still available and sufficient to handle the needs of women. Since the Morning After Pill has to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse, I would be on a podium claiming that the new law will encourage women to report rapes sooner (when it is easy to get DNA evidence) .... yada, yada.

The efforts to redefine the term abortion plays into the hands of the pro-lifers. If the pro-lifers understand this, they will be able to use the redefine terms win their cause of making fetal abortions illegal throughout the US..

The “progressive scientists” who think that they can manipulate debates by redefining terms simply destroy our ability to discuss issues, and ultimately end up undermining both their cause and end up harming they people that they were pretending to help.

Absolutism

2006-08-26T11:27:00.000-06:00

The real problem in the Morming After Pill debate is absolutism. I suspect that there is a group of Conservatives who, on hearing that the pill is an abortive, decide that since abortion is absolutely wrong that the Morning After Pill is absolutely wrong and, therefore, the pill must be illegal ... even in the case of rape.

To preempt this knee-jerk group, the progressive scientists go on a massive campaign to redefine "abortion" and to redefine "conception."

These progressive scientists themselves are being knee-jerk. They are responding to the absolutism of a minority. Abortion is legal in the US. As the majority of Americans want this option available for victims of rape and condom failure, I doubt this redefining of terms is a major factor in determining the outcome of the debate.

Unfortunately, since the progressive scientists have put us through the brain damage of redefining terms, we find ourselves in a new era of abosolutism. The marketers for the morning after pill have created the illusion that the pills are an absolutely wonderful and acceptable product to be used as a primary means of contraception.

The redefining of terms has effectively positioned this pill as a primary means of contraception, and we can expect a very large number of women to have their first sexual experiences without any other form of protection ... which will result in more AIDS victims and unwanted pregnancies.

Personally, I think the best world is one where the pill is widely available, but that it is openly recognized that the pill aborts the birth process at the embryotic stage. In such a world, the pill would be widely available; however, there would be a strong stigma against using it as a primary form of birth control.

The progressive scientists who are trying to re-engineer society by redefining terms generally end up making a muck of things. By redefining terms, they have effectively positioned their product in the market as a primary means of birth control. The end result of this idiocy is that are likely to increase the problems they pretend to be against.

This is a common pattern. The absolutism on one side breeds an absolutism on the other, society at large suffers in the process.

Is It Abortion

2006-07-20T16:38:00.000-06:00

One startling statistic that came out during the current frenzy about stem cell research is the fact that we have 400,000 frozen human embryos sitting around in fertility clinics throughout the US. Apparently, these little frozen people were produced by an out-of-control multibillion dollar fertility industry. Rand notes that the majority of these embryos were frozen with the specific intent of later pregnancies. Only about 11,000 of the 400,000 embryos are available for research.

My guess is that the intent, when freezing these embryos, was that they would be used to make people. This intent means that these aren’t just little theoretical spirit babies. These frozen embryos were put on ice with the belief that they would developed into people.

Stop and think. 400,000 is a very large number. In 2000, the population of Salt Lake City was 181,743. The population of embryos that could be thawed and matured is greater a major cities in our nation!

The frozen embryos, of course, are just a tip of the iceberg. Collecting embryos for freezing is not easy. I would guess that for each frozen embryo, there’s was dozen or more discarded embryos.

We are talking Holocaust style of numbers here. The fertility industry created these embryos knowing that they could develop into people. This is not just idle speculation about spirit babies. We are talking things that scientist fervently believed could be develop into people.

The idea that we should carry all of these embryos to term is absurd. There is zero reason to think that a person conceived in a petri dish in 1999 is better than one produced during a fit of passion in a Vegas Hotel ... the way God intended. (If God did not want people to have unwanted pregnancies, he wouldn't have created Vegas.)

The question I ask in this blog post is if disposing our frozen embryo stockpile is abortion?

A second question follows the first. If disposing the embryos is abortion, then what does that really mean?

The term “abortion” means stopping a process that has been started. These embryos were started on the path to developing into humans. Disposing of these embryos that scientists started on the process of becoming people pretty much fits that definition.

The fact that we are spending gobs of money to keep the embryos on ice shows for a fact that medical community considers them viable.

In my opinion, thawing the embryos is an abortion. It is an embryonic abortion, as opposed to a fetal abortion. We should use the term correctly.

I do realize that a large number indoctrinated into new think will splat out the party line that the politically correct definition of abortion is that an embryotic abortion is not abortion.

I am sorry, but I think terms should be defined by the way nature works and not according to desired political outcomes.

For that matter, redefining the terms of the debate does not change the moral issues involved with this topic.

The July 2006 issue of Mother Jones explored the embryo glut in greater detail.

Apparently, the reason we have 400,000 embryos on ice is that the parents (and fertility clinics, for that matter) lack the will to thaw the embryos. The Mother Jones article reports that 71% of the parents going through fertility treatment changed their minds about what to do with excess embryos. Parents start by saying they want excess embryos destroyed. After the process, they are unwilling to go through with the process.

To reiterate: The reason we have 400,000 embryos on ice is because people who thought they would have no problems discarding excess embryos end up having problems with that issue. The idea that you can change the debate by changing the definition of terms simply destroys our ability to community. It does not resolve the difficult issues that we face.

Both the Rand and Mother Jones articles note that the embryos on ice are not available for research. These embryos are the property of the parents and are caught in a web of moral dilemmas and don't want their off spring used for experimentation.

The problems we face exist beyond the way we define terms.

On to question two: If discarding embryos is abortion; what does this mean?

The first thing to point out is that the primary reason for the large number of discarded embryos created during artificial insemination is that there is a large number of embryos discarded during the natural birth process. Apparently what happens is that eggs are released on a timed schedule. It is common in natural pregnancies for multiple eggs to fertilize. It appears that when eggs implant in the uterine lining, the lining releases a hormone that makes the lining hostile to more eggs.

The natural birth cycle aborts embryos.

Artificial insemination replicates the natural process of fertilization. Replicating the natural process brings the natural abortions into the laboratory where they transform into artificial abortions.

Women seeking fertility treatment end up with multiple babies because the embryos because the release of embryos during artificial insemination is timed differently than the natural process that would abort several fertilized eggs.

Nature does not bring all fertilized eggs to term. As the natural process aborts embryos, there is no reason to think that artificial processes would not abort embryos.

I reject as absurd the idea that we have to save all of the embryos on ice. We have an overpopulated world and lack the resources to accomplish such a feat.

Artificial insemination creates moral dilemmas where moral dilemmas did not exist in the past. The very nature of science is that the more we know about the way things work, the more moral decisions we have to face. This is the way knowledge works.

It is absurd to say that we have to turn all of the frozen embryos into people. However, the ability to engage in artificial insemination creates a dilemma where there was not a dilemma before. We have a moral challenge that we must face.

The large number of frozen embryos shows that the American medical industry has failed to address the moral challenges created by their new science. As artificial insemination makes a natural process artificial, the natural abortion of embryos becomes an problematic artificial process.

Ultimately, the fertility industry needs to find a way to reduce the artificial byproducts of their efforts. All industries seem to face similar challenges. Just as the car industry has a moral obligation to minimize the air pollution created by their products, the fertility industry has a moral obligation to minimize the abortions created by their efforts.

The Chomski worshipers who believe they can cast aside moral dilemmas by redefining terms are nothing but unprincipled wanks. Science does not excuse man of the moral dilemmas created by increased knowledge. Good science is a process that makes mankind aware of the moral challenges of life.

The aborting of embryos is a natural process. It is absurd to say that our increased knowledge of the process of life means that we must bring all embryos to term. The moral issues come to play not as absolutes but as derivatives.

The question faced by the fertility industry is not simply about the number of embryos on ice. The question is about the overall ratio of embryotic abortions to births. The goal of the fertility industry should be to create fertility processes that decrease the ratio of aborted embryos to live births. Technology that increases the ratio should be rejected in favor of technology that decreases the ratio.

Personally, I see an overcrowded world. In my opinion, many of the people seeking fertility treatment would do this world a favor if they followed the path of adoption instead.

The next set of questions arise in the use of excess embryos for stem cell or other research.

Once again, the area should not be dominated by absolutes. A statement that researching on discarded embryos is absolutely perfect and okay is as off base as one that says research on stem cells from discarded embryos should be absolutely forbidden.

The science we pursue must be based on a widespread moral dialog.

Scientitists and policy makers must know for a fact that the embryos harvested for stem cell research had the potential to develop into human beings. The dreaded “A” word should be employed in debates about the issue. It is not an issue where people should tread lightly.

There are important issues to debate. For example, there is the question of whether or not we should use tax dollars to fund the collection of embryos from fertility clinics.

Also there should be a great deal of oversight and review of this research both by peers in the medical industry and people from the political and spiritual communities.

We should not shout down people because they are hated (the way that we hate GW Bush).

Imagine the results of a system where the Federal government paid $10,000 for embryos from fertility clinics for stem cell research. If I were an investor in the fertility clinic, I would demand the clinic increase production of embryos to cash in on this revenue opportunity.

A tax funded incentive will artificially increase the number of aborted embryos. Much as I hate Bush, his veto against using tax dollars to fund this research has a sound basis.

I like the dialog that went into the anti-fetal farming bill. A prohibition on any form of selling an embryo might be in order.

There is a host of political and spiritual issues that must be addressed. This is the nature of life.

Just as chemical companies should be forced to pay for the messes they create, the fertility industry should be forced to pay the cost of the embryos it creates. Perhaps there should be taxes and penalties placed on the artificial creation of excess embryos.

If such actions drive up the costs of artificial insemination, then so be it. Air pollution control jacks up the price of cars to the point that some people have to take the bus. Again, this is the cost of life.

The fertility industry has been irresponsible. The 400,000 embryos on ice is proof. They should be forced to pay the price of their actions.

The irresponsible actions of the fertility industry that caused it to build up a glut of 400,000 embryos on ice makes me doubt the integrity the researchers demanding tax dollars for their research on stem cells derived from human embryos. Although I recognize the loudest voices criticizing this research are right wing kooks. I can’t help but think that if we had listened to the right wings kooks irate about the excesses of the fertility industry, we may have been able to reduce the problems we have with the 400,000 human embryos on ice.

Regardless, we have to be able to talk. This unabashed shouting down of voices critical of harvesting human embryos does the world a disservice.

Propaganda and Reaction

2006-05-24T11:45:00.000-06:00

Hooray. Green Jenni found my provocative post! I was hoping this would happen. I actually started that post as response to her post. I figured my rant would be more effective if she found the back link on her own. Rather than my sending it to her.

Green Jenn's reaction to my rant was that I am clueless about the current assault being made on women by the right. I agree that there are regressive elements in our society. I currently live in Utah which is dominated by one of the most regressive belief systems ever conceived. I just have a different take on the CDC report and the Washington Post article. IMHO, the propaganda in the Washington Post and reaction to the propaganda are doing more harm to the feminist agenda at the moment than the far right.

We can see this point by looking at two different books. Who Stole Feminims (1995) is a work by Christine Hoff-Sommers. Ms. Hoff-Sommers might be described as a classical feminist. Her book details the way that radical feminists started playing propaganda games and became fast and loose with facts. Radical feminists had created a social network that was selectively filtering out truth and spinning arguments to create division.

The effect of this method of discourse was that the radical feministists had not only alienated the majority of women. They had alienated classical feminists.

The second book I want to look at came out in 2000. The work Baby Boon by Elinor Burkett shows how Bill Clinton, seeing that feminism had become a liability to the Democratic Party, intentionally sold out the feminism to win his 1996 re-election.

By engaging in negative discourse, the feminist movement eroded its base leading to the current political climate where women's rights are in peril.

"Forever Pregnant" article added with the flurry of alarmist posts on the internet shows a continuation of this negative trend. The CDC and March of Dimes came out with good health advice. This good health advice gets twisted and perverted by a propagandist rag. A social network of feminists blogs fume over the propagandist piece. What happens is that this fuming ends up alientating those people who see the good health advice from the CDC and March of Dimes for what it is: Good health advice.

Apparently, a few other bloggers like Health Riverside see the same thing I do. The WP article "Forever Pregnant was a piece of propaganda designed to create a strong negative response. Which it did.

Health-Riverside took the radical step and actually read the CDC report.

What she found is that actually CDC report was designed to fit a progressive agenda. The whole focus of the article is to use the rise in birth defects and infant mortality as a call to spend more health care dollars on poor women.

I agree with Green Jenni that our society is becoming regressive on women's issue. I see why women are really upset with what the WP wrote. What is happening, though, is that this report is simply repeating the dynamics that undermined feminism in the 90s. The fact that someone named Green Jenni argued against a plan to increase the recommended intake of whole foods is bizarre to the extreme.

Castro Beyond Cuba

2006-05-23T22:11:00.000-06:00

Sadly, one of the legacies of the Bush administration is we've pretty much lost the opportunity to nudge Cuba back onto the path of free market reform after Castro. This article appeared in a Yahoo newsfeed:

A U.S. commission is preparing to advise President George W. Bush on how to inject democracy into a post-Castro Cuba, but critics say Washington's 40 years of isolating the island may limit its chances of heading off a communist succession.

Bush should have been thinking about this before his decision to make Guantanimo Bay a perpetual prison for enemy combatants. The report on the post Castro world should have been on Bush's desk in term 1 of his presidency.

As it stands, South America has taken a decided leap to the left. Castro is able to secure Communism in Cuba for another generation by creating a fiecely anti-American alliance with Hugo Chavez.

Personally, I believe that the ongoing embargo has done more harm than good. As with the embargo of Saddam Hussein, Iran, and North Korea, these long standing generational embargos tend to solidify the political base of the dictators.

For example, if we had restored trade relations with Iran, we would have something other than military cards to play in the current nuclear crisis. Sadly, any report on post Castro Cuba received by Bush in his lame duck term is too late. Our best hope is that Castro will live on for another four years and do his tragic death scene during the next presidential term.

Orange Juice, Lentils and other Tools of Oppression

2006-05-22T14:39:00.000-06:00

Yesterday I looked at an inflamatory article by the Washington Post designed to inflame outrage at the March of Dimes and CDC for recommending that women get more folic acid (Vitamin B9). Green-Jenni 'almost burst a blood vessel' when she read this suggestion to eat more lentils and orange juice or to take Vitamin B9 supplements.

The March of Dimes and CDC had made the recommendations because the US is seeing a rise in infant mortality and premature birth (especially among minorities). This study is actually the completion of a mandate passed in 1998 (during the Clinton era). Anyway, they believe that the rise in birth defects, infant mortality and premature births is the result of folic acid deficiencies at the time of conception and early pregnancy.

The CDC and March of Dimes want folic acid deficiencies to be seen as a woman's health issue and not simply a pregnancy issue. The thought actually makes sense. The health of one's reproductive system is important regardless of whether or not a person is trying to get pregnant.

Angry progressives, however, claim that the recommendation that women get move vitamin B9 is a plot by right wing Christian groups who see women as nothing more than walking talking fetuses. The goal, I guess, is to oppress women with lentils and orange juice.

Yesterday, I commented on Green-Jenni. I really would have expect someone claiming to be Green to be happy about suggestions that women eat more lentils.

Today, I want to look at the comment of Laura who says "This isn't about health care, or making people healthy (because we'd have socialized medicine if that were the case)"

I think it is a bit unfair to say that the March of Dimes doesn't care about making people healthy. Laura is welcome to her opinions.

The really puzzling part of her statement is that Laura is complaining about the government's interference in her diet and in her reproductive system, but follows the complaint with a praise of socialized medicine.

I am puzzled by the large number of people who praise the ideal of socialized medicine without understanding what socialized medicine is.

Socialized medicine is a system where people completely relinquish their health care to the government. Doctors in government organizations would then sit in an ivory tower like the CDC and administer their version of health care to the populace. In socialized health care, this study on birth defects would not have ended with a recommendation that women take more folic acid. It would have resulted in a mandate that women take more folic acid.

Laura is angry because the "pre-pregnancy recommendations" do not take into account the individuality of women. Laura is not thinking of having children at this moment so she does not worried about the health of her reproductive system.

I happen to agree with Laura on this part of the issue. As an avowed free marketeer, my personal belief is that each person should develop their own individual approach to health care.

Socialized Health Care is the system where you have a paternal government dictating one's health care choices.

I showed the WP article and anti-folic acid rants to a few people. What is interesting is that people with a free market point of view take this research showing a strong link between folic acid deficiencies and birth defects as welcome news. Progressives, who advocate socialized medicine, take the recommendation as an affront.

Anyway, I need to rush. I see a woman down the street who appears to be starting to have an independent thought; As a male oppressor, I need to do my duty and oppress her by forcing her to eat a bowl of lentil soup (Get Free Soup).

Lentil Soup ... the choice of the oppressor!
Oppress the women in your neighborhood ...
serve lentil soup today!

Here is more info on folic acid.

Forever Pregnant

2006-05-21T11:41:00.000-06:00

I happen to have a great deal of respect for the March of Dimes. After helping irradicate polio, the March of Dimes turned its focus on the more difficult issue of birth defects and premature birth.

The March of Dimes is one of those groups that works in the trenches. They are in the trenches directly helping women and children with birth defects and they are in the trenches doing fundamental research in health issues. It is a group that has earned respect. The Center for Diseasse Control and Prevention notes that 1 in 33 children in the US are born with birth defects. This is a big problem affecting a large number of children.

One of the problems that the March of Dimes and the CDC have noticed is that many birth issues seem to be the result of health issues during the first days of pregnancy. Specifically, taking folic acid (buy vitamins online) can prevent Neural Tube Defects and premature births.

It is easy to get information on the importance of taking vitamin B to women who are seeking a doctor's help before becoming pregnant. The problem is that most births really aren't planned in advance.

So, the CDC and March of Dimes think that the best approach to preventing birth defects is to promote taking Vitamin B9 (folic acid) as a part of an overall women's health issue. Folic acid is found in orange juice, spinache, lentils, etc..

Folic acid helps in the production of red blood cells. A folic acid deficiency leads to anemia. The CDC and March of Dimes think women in child bearing ages should increase their folic acid intake with the aim of preventing birth defects. They are calling this effort pre-pregnancy health.

The ideal of pre-pregnancy health is that, since reproduction is a very important part of a women's life, health issues related to pregnancy should be included in the wider spectrum of women's health.

The March of Dimes and CDC have a very good, solid argument for promoting an increase in the RDA of folic acid for women.

Now for the Idiots R Us side of the debate: Since the CDC and March of Dimes are promoting taking vitamins to prevent birth defects, the Great American Left is now on an anti-vitamin campaign.

As part of this anti-vitamin campaign, The Washington Post ran an article titled "Forever Pregnant which begins "New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon."

Bloggers like Green Jenn are taking cue. Of this effort to increase the intake of Vitamin B9, she says "It's frightening to see how fast all the progress that women have made in the last 40 years are being stripped away."

Please note that 30 years ago, the hue and cry was that majority of health research was based on men's health. A feminist during the 50s, 60s and 70s would have praised research that showed women's specific health needs demand more Folic Acid than men. Now that we actually starting to have good scientific information specific to the needs of women's health, we get idiotic ranting about how such research turns back the clock on women's rights and reduces women to mere baby farms:

Again, here is Green Jenn's reaction to the suggestion that women should drink more orange juice or eat lentil soup: "Hi. My name is Jenny. I'll be your handmaiden, walking-incubator, live-baby-farm, uterus for the day."

The reason for these rants is not that eating lentils is bad. Our schools have indoctrinated people to make their judgments based on who is speaking and not what is said.

Were Hillary Clinton to come out in praise of lentils, the blogosphere would be fluttering with praise of the progressive new think in the air. Rather than silly statements like this "the new CDC guidelines prettty much makes for a smooth continuum of oppression."

The new left has raised Vitamin B9 to a tool of oppression! Arrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

The Reaction

2006-04-01T13:46:00.000-07:00

The Pro Life side of the EC debate seems to be doing something worse than labeling.

By letting their opponents dominate the language of the debate, the far right is able to make the argument to its followers that their views are marginalized. Since the left has shut off means of open debate, the far right hopes to be able to step in and dictate.

A common (and very dangerous theme) in modern conservative politics is that the means of open debate and diplomacy have been comprised to the extent that there is no alternative but to resort to unilateral decision making.

This is a common theme in history. The undermining of discourse on the left leads to unilateral action on the right. With discourse undermined, we degenerate into a system of action/reaction.

What we are likely to see is that the intellectual dishonesty used in the Emergency Contraception Debate will be used in the upcoming attempt by the right to outlaw abortion. By burning the bridge of discourse, the "progressive scientists" have created a world where we are more likely to have dictated unilateral decisions.

Labeling v. Classification

2006-04-01T08:29:00.000-07:00

A recurring theme in the literature on "emergency contraception" is an opinion that people who want blocking implantation to be classified as an embryonic abortion are trying to "label emergency contraception as an abortificant."

This issue leads me to wonder where labeling and classification diverge.

Labeling is a rhetorical device in which you try to manipulate a debate by attaching stigma or praise to different subject in the debate. Classification refers to efforts to divide things into groups so that we can intelligently discuss a topic and understand that topic.

Yelling at the proponents of Plan B and calling them "Baby Killers" would clearly be a case of labeling.

It seems that the difference between classification and labeling in one's motives. Labeling occurs when you try to influence the outcome of the debate by the words used. Classification occurs when you are trying to make sure ideas can be expressed in a debate.

It seems to me that using the term "embryonic abortion" to describe a situation where a fertilized egg fails to implant is an act of classification. Even though there is a stigma attached the the term "abortion" this classification highlights important elements in the debate. The word "abortion" simply means to stop a process that was started.

Failure to distinguish between embryonic and fetal abortion may be an act of labeling. Standing on the steps of capitol hill yelling that makers of Plan B are baby killers is clearly an act of labeling.

Anyway, I decided to read Christian sites to get some examples of labeling v. classification (up to this point, I had only read "scientific" or other sites that were considered objective ... like Wikipedia.). I was actually surprised. Basically, I've found a lot of people discussing the idea and very little irrational ranting. For example the site Christian Contraception tries to state clearly how each method of contraception works. There are frequent references to the idea that life begins with fertilization. The message board has several posts where people decided that such methods were abortion.

I found four or five Christian sites on contraception. They were all tying to give information help people make decisions with surprisingly little name calling. Many people seem to have concluded that IUD, Plan B and what not are abortificants and should not be used. I have yet to find that hotbed of labeling to which the media keeps refering.

Catholic.com puts forth an authorative statement that birth control is not up for choice. Beyond citing references to support its authorative statement, Catholic.com does not seem to be engaging in labeling of their opponents.

The American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists seems intent on arguing that widespread distribution of emergency contraceptives is a bad idea. For example, they cite a study that distributed EC to 17,800 women which found no drop in the number of abortions.

The political component of the Pro Life movement seems to have its share of loud mouths, but, for the most part, I am not finding a widespread effort on Christian communities to manipulate the debate through labeling. There even seems to be widespread acceptance for the fact that other people have different models of conception.

The point in my rants is that there should be different models. We enhance our understanding of the world by creating different models. Trying to manipulate dominate a debate by labeling everyone who holds to a particular model as "kooks" undermines this important process of dialogue.

So far, in the different things I've read, it appears to me that, in this debate, the pro plan b side is the one engaged in labeling. After engaging in labeling, it appears that they are trying to cover their actions by projecting their methods onto their opponents.

The next post will comment on discourse in the anti-EC side.

Paradigm Shifting for Fun and Influence

2006-03-30T18:24:00.000-07:00

Everything these days is a paradigm shift. Anyway, I was thinking about sociology and paradigm shifts and realized I should and some sociological speak to the question of rebranding conception. Here is a fun little stab at the Emergency Conraception tiff in sociological dialectic.

The transition in meaning of the term "conception" from fertilization to implantation is part of a broader progressive paradigm shift from a rigid Christian theological paradigm to a tolerant neopagan paradigm based on social progress. The antiquated Christian paradigm centered on an oppressive patriarchical model saw the invasion of the sperm into the ovum as the beginning of life. The tolerant neopagan of choice sees life beginning with the uteral embracing of a nascent embryo with the fetal bond of motherhood.

As with most paradigm shifts, the diversity tolerant paradigm is universally accepted in the educated scientific community and has quickly spread through open minded elements of the progressive society.

Typical of modern paradigm shifts, a marginalized reactionary element still clings to the antiquated terminology of the patriarchal sperm-centric view upon which it depends.

I think I still need to work on my socio-paradigmantic speak. I am not quite sure if I've injected enough insinuation with my combination of snarl words and purr words.

Speaking of the difference between patriarchical Christianity and matriarchical paganism. The Christian Science Monitor has a story on India's struggle to stop gender specific abortions. India passed a law that says you can't tell parents the sex of their baby because many families were getting the tests and aborting girls.

Rodney Stark is a true sociologist. His recent sociological history (The Rise of Christianity) noted that the Greco-Roman pagan societies had the practice of gender specific infantcide. Baby boys would go into the cradle. Baby girls would often be expose (i.e., dropped into the sewer). Stark's sociological history suggests that Christianity's emphasis that all people are children of God, meant that they ended up with the women. Even silly beliefs like the idea that you shouldn't abort children produced from rape led to the dominance of Christianity and the diminishing of Rome.

Much as I think women should abort products of rape, I can't help but recognize Stark's observation that this marginalized group of people called Christians did rise to dominance. They also make better company than mean spirited things in the professoriat.

In the war of definitions, I think this neoprogressive view that life begins at implantation has much staying power.

Splitting Hairs on Pregnancy

2006-03-30T11:37:00.000-07:00

Speaking of definitions. There is a hair we can split.

Implantation is the point a female first reacts to the presence of a fertilized egg. Pregnancy tests look for the hormones released at implantation. Add to this the fact that a large number of eggs fail to implant.

A person in hair splitting mode has justification to say pregnancy begins with implantation.

To support this hair splitting, one could note that with in vitro fertilization, the egg is fertilized in a test tube. There is a point when the egg is fertile, but not in the women. Clearly, the women is not pregnant. I wonder if one should say the test tube is pregnant?

Anyway, with hair splitting, you can create a stipulated definition where pregnancy is the period between implantation and birth. Let's stipulate that gestation refers to the period from fertilization to birth. You now have created a wonderful world where gestation and pregnancy mean different things.

With the stipulated definition of pregnancy, you can then argue that aborting an embryo before implantation does not abort the pregnancy. Yes, it aborts the gestation, but not the pregnancy. Aren't stipulated definitions wonderful?

The problem is that when you use stipulated definitions in public discourse, is that you have to be extremely clear that you are using stipulated definitions. If you use the word "pregnancy" and the audience is thinking "gestation" then you are not communicating. When you are pulling such a trick intentionally to manipulate an argument, then you are pulling an underhanded trick to thwart communication and stop communication.

If you use a stipulated definition, you have to be completely certain that others understand your stipulated definition.

Anyway, I decided to check on the current definition of "pregnancy". I checked several sources including Websters, Britannica, Dictionary.com and older printed dictionaries. Each of the sources I checked had pregnancy listed as from fertilization to birth. The really surprising thing is that the current definition at Wikipedia says "Pregnancy is the carrying of one or more embryos or fetuses by female mammals, including humans, inside their bodies."

Perhaps this isn't surprising. Most of the legitimate work on understanding the birth process is by people trying to create life and not by people trying to rid unwanted life.

As a test, I tried changing a sentence on the Wikipedia article that was saying that the opinion that pregnancy begins with fertilisation is a prolife view. The change was reverted within 3 minutes. I've comtemplated adding a link between the Wiki article on Emergency Contraception and the Wiki article on Pregnancy. It appears that someone tried that trick in the past. Not wanting to engage in flame edits, I don't think I will do that.

Dictates of the Right

2006-03-30T10:23:00.000-07:00

The far right is as dangerous as the far left.

In the case of the morning after pill, there are some voices on the far right that would say that even the possibility that the medication aborts an embryo after fertilization means that the medication should be banned and the producers of the medication should be summarily executed as baby killers. Utah legislators would probably hold such an opinion.

Fortunately, the far right tends to be small and usually ignorted. The reactionary right really only gets a toehold in discourse when there is something to react against.

In the case of Plan B, we have a medication that can substantially decrease unwanted pregnancies. Rather than arguing what we can do with this medication, the far left has taken the low row and intentionally undermined the debate by trying to redefine conception as beginning at implantation.

The current insistence on the left that we say conception occurs at implantation ends up giving rise and credibility to the far right. The attempt to manipulate the debate at the subliminal drives people from talking about the benefits and dangers of the medication and into a shouting match about the definition of terms.

Manipulating the debate destroys the middle. When you no longer have a middle, you are left with either a dictatorship of the left or right. In most cases you see a violent thrashing between left and right.

It seems to me that the middle has to protect the terminology. The danger, of course, is that an excessive argument for preserving terminology can end up feeding the right.

When the left wins, we lose our ability to make rational choices because the left destroys the ability to engage in discourse. When the right wins, we lose our choice to their dictates.

Who's Doing the Labeling?

2006-03-29T11:00:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that the right is just as prone as the left to use subliminal tactics like labeling to win debates. Labeling is the process where you try to rebrand words or to otherwise inject hidden meanings into the terms of the debate.

My experience is that the center is the group most likely to reject labeling. The center often wants to have a language where different opinions can be expressed.

Anyway, I was reading the current Wikipedia Article on Plan B. The current edit strongly implies that prolife activists want to relabel the terms of the debate so that Plan B would be regulated as abortion and made illegal. Here is a sample sentence: "Pro-Life groups often label emergency contraceptives as 'abortion pills', rather than 'contraceptive pills.'"

It really seems to me that it is the left which is doing labeling in this debate. If that is the case, then this sentence accusing the prolifers of label is simply an example of projection. Projection occurs when you project your methods on your opponents. Oddly projection often works. To effectively rebrand a term, you eventually have to have a way to attack the people using the old terminology. So, if you are trying to rebrand a term, you will eventually get to the point where you have to accuse your opponents of rebranding.

The reason that, in this case, it is the left that is rebranding is because there has been a tradition in Western history to say birth begins at something called "conception" and that interfering with the birth process between this thing called conception and birth is an abortion. In this old style of language, a contraceptive would be anything that prevented the start of the birth process.

The terminology that defines the morning after pill as a contraceptive breaks this tradition. The new terminology prevents people from being to express their idea.

The reason that I think the left side of this debate has engaged in intentional relabeling is that they did not need to chose the term "contraceptive" to describe their product. The term "emergency birth control" is available and could have been used to describe the class of medication. Calling the medication "Emergency Birth Contol" would have allowed debate about the product without all of the complex discussions about when conception occurs.

Calling the class of medication is a direct attempt rebrand the word conception. This rebranding hampers the ability of people to debate the issue. The actual effect of the redefinition is that is splits people into intransigent camps.

Personally, I see the arguments for this class of medication as so compelling that I think it should be widely available (regardless of the terms used). With the old terminology, one can argue that emergency birth control combines contraceptive methods with embryonic abortions to prevent the need for the more intrusive fetal abortion. With the old terminology, one can argue that embryonic abortion appears to be a natural form of birth control in that a large number of fertilized eggs fail to implant.

From a pro choice point of view one can argue that a woman should have an absolute choice about what gets implanted in her uterine lining. In the case of rape, one can argue that since a women did not have a choice in the sexual act, that she has an absolute choice in what happens at the uterine lining.

With the old terminology, you can build the argument that, although conception occurs at fertilization, the a pregnancy truly starts when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine lining. Again, this compelling argument supports choice.

With this model you can effectly argue that Plan B should be defined and regulated as an early term form of birth control. Plan B should not be regulated as fetal abortion!

The old terminology, of course, lets right wing kooks express their opinions. A medical professional who has vowed never to interfere with the development of life can express why she refuses to administer a given medication.

The old terminology lets one express the opinion that, while Plan B should be used in cases of rape, it should not be used as a primary means of birth control. In the case of rape, rapid application of Plan B prevents both the number of embryonic and fetal abortions. However, if used as a primary means of birth control, Plan B will simply create a large number of embryonic abortions. These embryonic abortions would have been prevented if other means were used as the primary means of birth control.

One advantage of the old terminology is that it allows you to build a hierarchy of ideas and express the opinion that some of the ideas in the hierarchy are preferble to others. For example, the hierarchy might be abstinence, contraception, embryonic abortion, fetal abortion and late term abortion.

Within this model, you can discuss the merits of different ideas. For example, couples have the decision of using pure contraception (things that only block fertilization) or combined contraceptives (methods that block fertilization but also block implantation). The new definitions end up tricking people into using methods they may have rejected if people did not muddle with the language.

Of course, the old style terminology does allow the right to make their arguments against Plan B. So, while the old terminology allows arguments on both sides of the issue, the new terminology only allows arguments on the left. Redefining conception as implantation deprives the ability of others to express their opinions.

Since the old style terminology means that right wing kooks can argue their case, there is a possibility that the will win and get legislation passed against emergency birth control.

Of course, even with the new terminology, there is a chance that the right might win. The right is as good as the left at forming automous groups that force their views on others. I have the misfortune of living in Utah where the average legislator is denser than the granite in the mountains.

My experience in life is that trying to win debates on the subliminal level actually results in entrenching and further empowering dictatorial forces on the right. The far left and right use the same techniques to stifle debates. They tend to tune in and re-inforce each other's tactics.

Personally, I believe that our laws should err on the liberal side, but that our actions as individuals should tend toward the conservative. The old style terminology is suitable for this end. The old style terminology provides both a philosophical and moral basis for making Emergency Birth Control widely available. It also provides a language that individuals can use for making the important decisiions that affect their lives.

The attempt to rebrand conception to mean implantation has the effect of polarizing people and is likely to result in the situation where people are either coerced into taking medication that they would otherwise avoid or in the situation where iconoclasts on the right prevent access to a medication that could help people (especially rape victims) take control of their lives.

We should err on the side of the terminology that lets us discuss the issue and should avoid trying to win debates by undermining the process of discourse.

Choice

2006-03-26T07:13:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I had a big talking down to about how I am a right wing kook. Not only am I a right wing kook. I am a right wing kook who dictates to others (despite the fact that I have never once dictated to the person in question, I am a right wing dictatorial kook simply because I do not engage in the group think of the day!).

The reason I've been dwelling on the "Is Plan B abortion question?" is because I have big problems with new speak. I disagree with the progressive scientist in that I do not believe we achieve social progress by manipulation the terms of the debate.

I believe strongly in women's choice. However, to make a choice, a person has to have information. Being duped into taking Plan B is not a choice! When the progressive scientist tries to force an action by manipulating terms, they undermine a women's choice.

Personal choices about reproduction sit why high up there with the most important choices a person makes in their life. There are women who have decided that, under no circumstance, will they do anything to artificially stop the development of a person in the birth process. That is a legitimate choice.

People who made that choice need to know which birth control techniques work by blocking implantation. Manipulating the terms in the debate make it hard for people to make that choice. Even worse, when a person finds out that the "contraceptive" that they've used for the last umpteen years worked by blocking implantation and not blocking fertilization, the person will feel betrayed and angry.

I believe strongly that choice should be the center of any laws regarding reproduction. I also believe that the individual women in question should be the primary decision maker. I campaigned against the Utah consent law because it makes a girl's parent the decison maker. The girl should be the decision maker!

Back to choices, I find it patently unfair to force a doctor to administer a pill that the doctor finds objectionable. Although I have read Chomsky, I do not believe that it will ever be possible to convince a doctor that Plan B only stops pregnancies by stopping fertilization. Yes, Chomsky looms higher than God in the academic community, however, the biological processes are part of the natural world. Eventhough manipulating terms might manipulate politics, it will never change physical reality. Linguistics does not change the physical birth process.

Although it is wrong to force doctors to administer something they find objectionable, we are fortunate in that the morning after pill can be self administered.

Here I am 100% supportative of making Plan B over the counter!

This is why I am so angry. In the world of over the counter drugs, we depend entirely on the marketing of the drug makers to educate people in their decisions.

It appears that drug makers for "emergency contraceptives" have undergone a massive misinformation campaign to create the illusion that the drug does not cause embryonic abortions when it blocks implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining. The misinformation campaign guarantees abuse of the substance. I am against government regulations. However, misinformation campaigns end up necessitating regulations. This class of medications should be called emergency birth control and not emergency contraception. My idea of good marketing material would be something like: "Plan B is an effective means of birth control that can be taken after sexual intercourse. Plan B stops the production of ovaries, it makes existing eggs infertile and it releases hormones to prevent fertile eggs from implanting in the uterine lining, effectively aborting any fertilized eggs." Good marketing material might include a chart showing the number of blocked fertilizations contrasted with the number of embryonic abortions. Good marketing material might note that it uses same hormones used by the body to prevent the implantation of multiple embryos, and that there is a large number of natural abortions.

The medication should continue to emphasize that the pill does not affect eggs that been implanted in the uterine lining.

Honesty creates the dialog needed to make choices. Dishonesty creates an environment where we need government regulation.

In my opinion, emphasizing that blocking implantation of an embryo effectively aborts the embryo helps support the cause of later term abortions.

The original argument for abortion was that human life goes through stages and that aborting a pregnancy during the early stages is not equivalent to murder. Calling the loss of embryos an abortion supports this argument. Saying that conception occurs at implantation makes it harder to justify fetal abortions.

I believe strongly in choice. Real choice revolves around knowledge. Undermining the language to win debates will end up in dictated solutions. This opinion labels me a right wing kook. I hope that someday we break this mold where kookery is the only way to have dialog.

Compelling reasons for Plan B

2006-03-24T00:51:00.000-07:00

I realize that my last posts sound a bit like I promote the arch conservative view on Plan B. In reality, I am trying to hash out this question of redefining terms to win debates. Abortion rights advocates seem to have decided that the only way to win their debate is to create an environment where they have a different set of terms than the right. Once we are separated by terminology, the hope is that people will divide into camps based on our feelings.

Almost all of the left leaning articles I have read on Plan B seem to use the simple format of trying to force a new set of terminology on us. To re-inforce their position, they then paste negative labels on the people who use the old terminology. I guess we are supposed to develop the image that new speak is rational and scientific, while classical speak is fuddyduddy old style thought.

My opinion is that the integrity of the debate is more important than the policies passed at a given time.

Rather than trying to find ways to divide people into camps. I wish the people supporting Plan B would be making a greater effort to argue the compelling case for Plan B. Here is what I consider to be the compelling case:

Nature has given us a safe and effective means to stop a pregnancy at implantation. It even appears that nature uses implantant as a natural method of birth control.

To understand this, we need to review the human birth process. Women do most of the work in the birth process. The process starts with ovulation. In ovulation the female produces a serios of eggs that float down the fallopian tubes. If these eggs come in contact with sperm, they become fertile. The fertile egg will float down the fallopian tube. The egg will then implant in the uterine lining. At this step, the female body starts forming a sack for the egg. To prevent multiple pregnancies, her body then releases hormones that tells the uterus to stop accepting eggs.

I guess that means that most of us have twin brothers and sisters who didn't make it because we occupied the stall.

I understand that in a typical pregnancy, several fertilized eggs fail to implant. Our human bodies are using this form of natural abortion at implantation as a means to allow people to concentrate more resources on fewer children. Dogs and cats have babies in litters.

The morning after pill has two actions. The pills stop ovulation and they release the hormones that block implantation. The morning after hormonal medications have a phenomenal 99% success rate.

The compelling argument for Plan B is that the pills use a natural process built into our bodies to control pregnancy.

The fact that the medication uses a natural process to abort the development of a fertilized egg is quite compelling. We should use this technology in birth control.

The fact that we are using a natural process to abort eggs does not mean that there are no moral issues involved with the technology.

I am a staunch believer in the woman's right to control her reproductive process. A woman should have the legal right to control implantation of fertilized eggs in her uterine lining.

My belief in empowering women does not mean that there are no moral dimensions to the debate. These moral dimensions exist. In my opinion empowering women means that we must empower them to make the difficult decisions.

Manipulating the debate by changing terms does not empower people. Manipulating the debate by changing terms takes away from a person's ability to make the important choices in their lives.

Physically taking actions to prevent implantation is different from the fact that the process occurs naturally.

Women who takes a medication thinking that it is preventing fertilization will feel betrayed if ever she finds out that the pill was, in fact, stopping implantation.

I agree with using the medication in the cases of rape or as a back up form of birth control. I find myself wavering when prevented with the idea of using this as a primary form of birth control.

While I think the medication should be available for rape victims. I find that I have a hard time asking medical professionals to take an action that interferes with the development of a fertilized eggs.

I understand the "progressive scientist" view that changing the meaning of words might ease some people's conciences when administering the medication. However, the moral dimension of this issue arise from the what the pill does, and not from our terminology. No matter how hard we try to change biological processes by changing definitions, we will not change biological reality by changing terms.

Progressive scientists are more in the tradition of voodoo doctors than medical doctos.

Plan B is a relatively natural medicine that can help us control birth and prevent unwanted pregnancy. However, women are only truly empowered with this issue by engaging in the moral debate.

Plan B ... Let's Start Shouting

2006-03-23T18:10:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I was upset that "progressive scientists" had tried to manipulate a debate about Plan B by changing the definition of conception. To make Plan B more palatable, they wanted to change the definition of conception to mean implantation.

I was sad to hear on NPR that social conservatives had block a vote on a Plan B bill. This bill would have required hospitals to give Plan B to rape victims.

IMHO, the truly controversial part of this bill is that you are requiring Doctors and a hospital to do something that they do not want to do.

If you listen to the report. Notice how Libby Lewis totally trips over herself as she tries to redefine terms. She says the pill works by preventing ovulation (which is true). She then says Catholics "believe" that it also stops implantation of fertilized eggs. It is not a matter of belief that Plan B stops the implantation of fertized eggs! It is a fact that Plan B stops the fertization of eggs.

Interestingly, the Catholic hospitals that do not want to give the medication blindly actually test to see where a woman is in ovulation. Essentially, the Catholics are trying to devise a Plan C that only stops ovulation, but does not stop implantion.

Is this logic clear? If the Catholics have a Plan C that stops ovulation. Then the difference between Plan B and Plan C is that Plan B stops implantation!

Assuming that the Catholic Hospitals really are using Plac C to stop ovulation, then Connecticutt law would be forcing the hospitals to be taking action to directly abort the development of a fertilized egg.

Personally, I favor Plan B. I think rape victims should take the pill. I think they should abort the embryo by blocking it at implantation.

The question of the Connecticutt law is if health care givers should be forced to give the pill to people. This is very close to demanding that health care workers violate the hippocratic oath. If a hospital worker is forced to use Plan B in lieue of a Plan C, then you have a law that requires health care workers abort an embryo after conception.

Although I favor Plan B. I have to concur that this sounds like a bad piece of legislation. Libby Lewis presented a very bad piece of journalism that intentionally masked the issues at debate in the law.

What I am trying to point out here is that the "progressive scientists" are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to manipulate the law by changing definitions.

I agree that Plan B is the best option. However, I have to concede that forcing a health care worker to administer Plan B is a very bad idea.

In the case where a health care worker does not want to administer or even sell the pill, we need to get the rape victim to someone who will administer it. Libby Lewis's report even indicates that the Catholic Hospitals were willing to do that.

Lewis presents this particular debate as one where the social conservatives were trying to force pregnancies on rape victims. In reality it was one where the state was trying to force health care workers to violate their personal code of ethics.

The problem with this modern dialectics that tries to manipulate debate by changing definitions is that we end up wasting ourselves on garbage legislation. This was a bad bill. Forcing a hospital to use Plan B instead of Plan C is equivalent to forcing the hospitals to violate their principles and it forces health care workers who see a fertilized egg as a viable entity to violate the Hippocratic Oath.

If we weren't trying to manipulate the debate by changing definitions, it would be clear as to why this was a bad law. We would be in a better position to go back and write a good law.

Unfortunately, the thing the progressive scientists are doing with their insistence on using underhanded methods to manipulate the debate is entrenching and strengthening their opposition.

Is Emergency Contraception Abortion?

2006-03-11T16:38:00.000-07:00

If so; what does that mean?

Recently, I stumbled into a nest of “progressive sites” that were livid about right wing kooks who were opposed to a class of medicine that marketers have labeled “emergency contraception.” This is a class of pills that a woman can take a day after sex and prevent pregnancy. The pills have a triple action: The pills stop ovulation, they make any eggs infertile. The pills also prevent the implantation of fertile eggs in the uterine lining.

Emergency contraception uses many of the same hormones that women release when they transition from ovary production mode to baby production mode.

Anyway, I decided to research the issue. Here, I found something that really got my blood boiling. Apparently, the progressive science community as decided to unilaterally redefine the term conception. To make the pills more palatable to the political community, the progressive science community has decided to define conception as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine lining.

It is this redefining of terms for political ends that really gets me in a tizzy. The redefining of terms for political ends destroys our ability to communicate.

The old model of discussing the birth process use the term “conception” to refer to the act that launched the baby production process. The old process used the term “abortion” to refer to anything that stopped the process.

Now, it just so happens that there is a very large number of natural abortions. For example, if two eggs are fertilized, one of the eggs will get in the uterine lining. The uterine lining will release hormones that prevent other fertilized eggs from implanting.

In the old scientific model, one would have to concede that emergency contraception works both as a contraceptive and an abortive, depending on where the woman is in the birthing process.

My understanding is that the old scientific model referred to the loss of a fertilized egg before implantation as an abortion. The used the term miscarriage for the loss of the fetus after implantation.

Some thirty years ago, abortion was considered a natural process and did not carry a social stigma, which is why abortion advocates chose to use the term. The argument some thirty years ago would be that scraping a fetus from the uterine lining was really not that much different from the natural abortion that occurs when a embryo fails to implant in the uterus.

Today, the term “abortion” has a very strong social stigma. Most people associate it with surgical procedures where doctors remove a developing fetus. Simply mentioning the word causes many people to stop thinking and to start yelling.

I understand why progressive scientists want to change the definition of the terms “conception” and “abortion.” If you hold the opinion that the public at large is just too plain stupid to discuss science issues rationally, then one falls into the trap of thinking that the only way to hold a debate is through the manipulation of terms.

Unfortunately, when you try to win the arguments by destroying the foundations of the debate, you end up creating this shrill environment where everyone yells past each other.

Don’t the progressive scientists realize that when people feel that they are being manipulated in an underhanded fashion, they tend to over react in opposition to your ends.

Personally, I think we should resist the progressive scientists and avoid this traps we create when we try to manipulate public through the redefinition of terms.

There is a very important distinction between preventing pregnancies by blocking fertilization and blocking implantation. Both policy makers and decision makers need to have a way to discuss this important distinction.

Many couples do care about the specifics of their birth control, and they prefer methods that stop fertilization. Likewise, this is an important issue for policy makers. Should policy makers allow “emergency contraception” to be market as a primary means of birth control?

Most of the literature I’ve found from those promoting the day after pill emphasizes that “emergency contraception” is exactly like other forms of contraception. Yes, the day after pill uses the same hormones to stop ovulation and block the uterine lining as the pill. The difference between the two medicines come from their use. If you follow the directions, the primary effect of the pill is to stop ovulation. The pill should have a low percent of embryonic abortions. The primary aim of taking a day after pill is to stop implantation. The day after pill will have a much higher number of embryotic abortions.

I’ve come across many sites claiming that the day after pill will stop a large number of abortions.

Here, again, I think we do better with the old terminology. With the old terminology, one might say that the day after pill will prevent a large number of fetal abortions. The pill does so by reducing the number of fertilized eggs and by aborting fertilized eggs at implantation. In the case of rape, clearly the pill will reduce both the number of embryonic and fetal abortions.

However, in discussions about using the day after pill as a primary means of birth control, we find ourselves in a situation where we are simply trying to replace one form of abortion with another. In this regard we find that the “emergency contraception” pill does not work exactly like other forms of contraception (as the literature says). There is a very good argument that the morning after pill should not be promoted as a primary means of birth control.

I am in favor of both the use and widespread availability of the morning after pill. I believe that the pill should be offered to rape victims. However, I do not believe we need to bastardize our language to make this class of medication acceptable. The class of medicine should be called emergency birth control. The drug makers should not mislead the public into thinking that the primary effect of the medication is blocking fertilization. The pill has a dual action of blocking fertilization and implantation (ie, and embryonic abortion).

If we cannot sell the pill based on what it does, then we are doing the world a great disservice by changing the definition of words to make the morning after pill appear that it is something that it is not.

Thoughtful people who are truly against abortion do see the power of this medication, especially in cases of rape. The true dangers of this class of medication come when people start replacing true contraception with emergency contraception. When this happens, you start generating a large number of artificial embryonic abortions.

Yes, I agree there is a hard time holding discussions with iconoclasts in places like the Utah legislature.

Trying to win the debate by changing definitions, however, takes us out of the realm of rational discussion and into that of shrill manipulations. It is in this arena of shrill manipulations that iconoclasts do their most damaging work.

Technorati

2005-08-14T14:32:00.000-06:00

Interesting, the web site Technorati shows inbound links from other blogs.

To tell you the truth. I feel bad that I have a blog that says absolutely nothing. The list shows 4 inbound links. I haven't a clue about why anyone would link here.

This blog only exists because blogs exist. Was it Descartes who said: "Blogs exist, therefore I blog"?

I had been thinking about actually trying to say things. unfortunately, it takes a great deal of effort to say worthwhile things; so I've been contenting myself just playing the link to things game.

The Wilding of America

2005-01-21T15:44:00.000-07:00

NOTE, I am having trouble posting to Blogger. I had this intro written the way I liked, but my writing disappeared when I hit submit. Writing in a HTML textbox is a bad idea.

I am stealing the "term" wilding of America from a Professor Charles Derber who wrote a work called The Wilding of America.

This is an extremely odd piece of work. The term "wilding" refers to a gang that is out doing some crimes to pass the evening. Derber twists the word around and uses it to mean the evils caused by a thing he calls "individualism."

I read the 1996 edition of the work. It is largely an "us v. them" piece of liturature. Professor Derber is a "communitarian" which is a modern twist on other varieties of Socialism and Communism. Communitarians are the us. Businesses and the Republican Party are the "them." The Democratic Party is helpless stooges. There is a new 2003 edition put out to aid in the campaign against George Bush.

The primary thesis of the work is that we need stronger Communitarian led social institutions and possibly even collectivization of businesses to stem the wilding that results from individualism.

The 1996 version of Wilding of America labels Newt Gingrich as the ultimate wilder. Now that Gingrich no longer appears as a threat, I suspect that Bush is now the ultimate wilder who will bring the end of civilization. The mere fact that the book appears dated after less than a decade in print strongly indicates that Derber is not addressing any universal problems.

If you choose to read the book, I suggest you hunt down the 1996 edition.

What Derber does in the work is really odd. He recounts a large number of tales from current headlines to make us feel scared. He then blames the scary things on a strawman called "individualism." He spends a great deal of time praising friends, and denouncing enemies. Derber finds ample cases of "economic wilding" in businesses he despises. A lay off is a form form of economic wilding. The things he doesn't like in politics he calls "political wilding". Voting for a Republican is an example of political wilding.

Nowhere in Derber's essay does he talk about "Intellectual Wilding." The academic community is, after all, Derber's power base. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't include any professor that disagrees with Communitarianism as wilders. Intellectual wilding didn't come up in the 1996 edition.

Hmmm, my calling Derber an "intellectual wilder" will probably earn me the same silly label.

Of course the thing that is really odd about Derber's work is that he starts with cases of gang activity (which is the ulimate example of group think) and blames the gang activity on "individualism."

Intellectual Wilding

2005-01-21T01:05:00.000-07:00

Dictionary.com defines the slang term wilding as: "To go about in a group threatening, robbing, or attacking others.

I use intellectual wilding to refer to "intellectuals who go about in a group threatening, robbing, or attacking reason."

This blog will work in conjunction with The Roots of Sound Rational Thinking. Plusroot.com is interesting in promoting foundational logic that promotes civil discourse and quality reasoning. This blog, however, will take stabs at understanding the negative discourse which seems to dominate the current intellectual climate.

Perhaps by identifying and naming negative trends, we might be able to avert them and get back on the track of positive discourse.

The biggest challenge when discussing negative discourse is that there is a tendency for people to become caught up in all the negative tricks that people use to subvert reason. For that reason, I believe a blog might be a better mechanism for discussing such trends than a more structured program.