More Octomoms on the Way

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

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

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 ...

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

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

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

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.