Giles said he and his Alabama colleagues have "a dozen hard reasons" for the action but would elaborate on only one -- a perception that the coalition's leadership was diverting itself from traditional concerns such as abortion and same-sex marriage to address other issues ranging from the environment to Internet access.
IOCC is one of the best positioned humanitarian aid organizations on the ground in Lebanon. Since 2001, IOCC has been implementing a USDA-funded school feeding and education program in Beirut, Mount Lebanon, the South and the North, serving a total of 242 schools and 45,000 students. When war broke out, the IOCC Beirut staff turned what was essentially a development initiative into an emergency relief program for thousands of displaced Lebanese families. (IOCC)
A biotech company has come up with a way to create embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos.
The new method works by taking an embryo at a very early stage of development and removing a single cell, which can be coaxed into spawning an embryonic stem cell line. With only one cell removed, the rest of the embryo retains its full potential for development. (Associated Press)
Some stem cell researchers complain that the new approach, though it may hold future promise, simply isn't as efficient as their current method of creating stem cells. [...] Meanwhile, hard-line opponents of stem cell science argue that the technique solves nothing, because even the single cell removed by the new approach could theoretically grow into a full-fledged human.
I've encountered two examples of an interesting use of the word "politics" in, well, politics.
Former Colorado state Sen. Ed Perlmutter is running in the Aug. 8 primary to compete for a open US House seat. He's running ads that promote embryonic stem cell research. He supports this research, he says, because "people are more important than politics". What? So we're now allowed to pick a political position and, if anyone opposes us, dismiss them as "politics"? I'm sorry, Mr. Politician, everything you are involved in is "politics". Search your feelings, you know it to be true! There's something wrong with a politician denigrating politics. What's next? CEOs deriding corporations?
And this morning I heard about the confirmation hearings for acting FDA commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach. There's a bit of discussion about how the FDA has been handling the Plan B abortifacient and how/if it'll be sold over the counter without a prescription. There was talk in the Senate about the FDA putting "politics above science". Again, leaving aside the fact that these are politicians talking, I don't know exactly what that's supposed to mean. No one values "politics" over anything! (Except, I thought, politicians, but maybe I'm wrong.)
We get a little closer to a real discussion with the accusation of the FDA acting according to "ideology instead of science". And even closer when Sen. Clinton said that "politicizing" the FDA would mean inserting moral judgments into the process, and that middle-aged men should be concerned because diet drugs could conceivably be outlawed because obesity is "immoral".
So I guess we know what the real problem is. One side of the debate has the moral high ground ("thou shalt not murder") so the other side must resort to name calling and scare tactics. Politics as usual!
[Alan] Wolfe, an unbeliever, told me he finds the kind of "stuff" he sees at venues such as the International Christian Retail show to be indicative of an anemic American evangelical subculture.
Wolfe said in no certain terms that he does not want Christians to "witness" to him about the gospel, but, nonetheless, he sees in Christian T-shirts, breath-mints, and boy bands the reality that Christians don't want to witness to him anyway. Wolfe said that he cannot imagine an unbeliever coming to faith through, say, a Christian bumper-sticker on the car in front of him. Buying the stuff gives Christians an easy conscience that they are carrying the Great Commission without ever having to verbally and relationally engage their unbelieving neighbors.
[...]
Whatever the "evangelistic" selling point of these products, I think the real reason they make money is an American Christianity seeking to form a common community, a common culture. Unfortunately, instead of finding this in churches, with one Lord, one faith, one baptism, we find it the same way the culture around us does: by buying stuff with the same logos. (Russell D. Moore, Mere Comments)
Continued death penalty woes.
in Missouri, U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan has ordered the state department of corrections to make a series of improvements to its execution protocol, including employing a board-certified anesthesiologist to ensure that the drugs used in lethal injections were properly prepared.
The action came after the doctor who had been overseeing Missouri executions admitted he was dyslexic, often mixing up numbers, and after Taylor's attorneys discovered records showing doses of anesthesia were half what they should have been for some executions, including the dose that awaited Taylor.
In response to the judge's order, Missouri has said it cannot find an anesthesiologist willing to participate and plans to appeal. The American Medical Association this month reminded doctors that it views participation in executions to be a violation of medical ethics. (Reuters)
I don't understand the US military's current policy regarding gays. One of the original justifications for not having gays in the military is that they'd be more subject to blackmail. Yet that is the exact environment that has been artificially created with the current policy.
The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, established in 1993, prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members, but requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.
The policy is becoming "a very effective weapon of vengeance in the armed forces" said Steve Ralls, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a Washington-based watchdog organization (Associated Press)
I haven't been following the case closely, but it looks like the guy who wanted the choice to opt out of child support payments (because his girlfriend promised him she was infertile and taking birth control) lost his case.
Last week, U.S. District Court Judge David M. Lawson dismissed the lawsuit, writing in his decision, "[Dubay] had difficulty accepting the financial consequences of his conduct so the state came to his assistance." (AlterNet)
the man's choice occurs earlier in the process...he can CHOOSE to ensure that conception does not occur by using a condom correctly
A male should take responsibility for being fertile...either abstain from sex until you are ready, or get your self "fixed"
I am shocked at the hypocrisy of so-called “smart & progressive” women like the writer of this commentary.
Do not force something on a man that you do not want forced upon you. It is that simple.
[...]
Everything changes IF ABORTION RIGHTS ARE TAKEN AWAY FROM WOMEN. Then, and only then, may women ethically and logically FORCE men to pay out the nose. Trap them. Do whatever. But, as long as women are able to control their own reproductive process, they have no right in this world to force a man to pay a dime for a child they choose to have.
Praise for the forward march of science. Progressive and liberal leaders championing new scientific techniques that promise to cure disease, eradicate illness and suffering and advance the progress of the human race. Elite institutions of higher education embarking on their own initiatives, training students and supporting researchers in the new science. California's self-described progressive citizenry passing a law granting state funding and support to the cause, with other states preparing to follow suit. The intellectual elite of the country decrying the obstructionist, anti-modern views of the people who oppose or publicly challenge the underlying ethical rationale of the new science.
This might sound like our contemporary debate over embryonic stem cells, but it's actually an apt description of the eugenics movement in the United States in the early 20th century.
[...]
Like eugenics, promoters of embryonic stem-cell research talk of its endless promise, declaring it the scientific "path to the future," as two state senators from Massachusetts wrote in a recent opinion piece. Promoters claim that their science will lead to cures for a range of diseases and the alleviation of much human suffering. And they denounce those who question the ethics of their pursuit as backward or blindly religious.
But as we continue to debate the ethics of embryonic stem-cell research, it is worth recalling that movements waged in the name of scientific progress often leave a troubled legacy.
The polarization begins.
What you're not hearing a lot of today is the stem cell bill that Congress declined to pass. The bill that would have funded research using adult stem cells instead of embryonic. One thinks, who could be against that? After all, adult stem cells provide an awful lot of promise as well and research is research.
Those that want to risk the war to win the battle, that's who. The bill would have provided some cover to President Bush, allowing him to temper his veto of the embryonic stem cell bill with a signing of an adult stem cell bill. And that was the problem for Democrats.
I understand political wranglings. The Dems want Bush (and the Republicans) to look as bad as possible so they win elections in 2006 and 2008. But if their concern for sick people who might benefit from stem cell research is real, you'd think that research is more important than elections. Guess not.
