Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind

But these distinctions are easy to make. Take the abortion issue. For most people, it’s very black and white. If you believe as a matter of faith (or creationist-like pseudoscience, which is simply an attempt at the rationalization of faith) that life begins at zygote, then you’re probably of the opinion that abortion is murder. If you believe that life begins at birth (or some wavy-lined interim self-support stage, which is another poor rationalization of faith) then you probably agree that abortion is a choice a pregnant woman can make. Unlike most issues, there is very little middle ground here. Embryonic stem-cell research is the same type of issue.

From a biological scientific point of view this is not very accurate. Stem cells are not "lifeless protoplasm". They are alive. A sperm cell is alive, an egg is alive, a zygote is alive, an embryo is alive, a fetus is alive, a baby is alive...the question is not when life begins since life is a continuation. You can't get life from non-life, you have to start with life (at least so far--we may opne day create living cells from chemical components but we are not there yet.). The question is--when is it HUMAN LIFE and what rights do we grant human life at its various stages?

There is nothing hypocritical about realizing that a fetus is alive and not necessarily giving it the same rights as an adult. There are certain requirements for life to be life (you can find them in any 8th grade bio text) and a fetus has all of them. But they can't vote, drive cars, drink, or, perhaps, obligate their mothers to carry them to term.

This is more a legal question than a scientific one.

No, it's a religious argument.

I take it from what you said that, since sperm and ova are "alive" that the destruction of same is killing, and you are opposed to birth control. And since you see this as a legal issue, you are opposed to ANYONE employing so-called unnatural means of birth control, such as the birth control pill, spermicidals, condoms, etc.

In my book, life begins at birth. In your book, life begins at, I gather, the creation of each sperm and ova. That's fine by me -- as long as you don't impose YOUR views of life on others by making it all "legal" questions.

We have enough big government.

I take it from what you said that, since sperm and ova are "alive" that the destruction of same is killing, and you are opposed to birth control. And since you see this as a legal issue, you are opposed to ANYONE employing so-called unnatural means of birth control, such as the birth control pill, spermicidals, condoms, etc.

No, Mike, you're wrong, both on my views and one the science. Normally I get pissed off when people missread me so badly but because you have more than proven yourself to be intelligent and mostly fair I'll assume I wasn't clear enough and try to correct that mistake.

The question of life is very very easy. A living cell is alive. A fetus is undeniably alive--it grows, consumes energy, is made of cells which reproduce, it moves, it responds to stimuli...these are the scientific definitions of life.

Just because I can see, with my own little eyes, that a sperm cell is a living thing (I have no idea WHAT you think it is) does not mean that destroying it is tantamount to murder. Murder is a legal definition. Spitting on a sidewalk kills a few dozen cheek cells with each loogie but it ain't murder.

I don't find your desire for what the LAW should be to be objectionable but the idea that "life" "begins" at any point is demonstrably false. How you managed to go from me saying that "the question is not when life begins since life is a continuation" to "In your book, life begins at, I gather, the creation of each sperm and ova" simply astonishes me.

The problem with your rationalizations, Bill, is the fact that science makes no difference in defining "life" whether that "life" is in the form of an alga, a flowering plant, a caterpillar, a frog, a chimpanzee or a human. It doesn't even make a distinction in defining "life" whether one's discussing a single cell that's part of a larger whole or the whole body of cells. It's RELIGION (or more generally, philosophy since religion is a rather specialized subcategory of philosophy) that makes the so-called vital difference which distinguishes the life of an alga from the life of a person.
Of course, religion does have a double standard in its application of life--at least, as Dubya seems to feel. He won't allow federal funds to be applied to research involving embryos which are going to be destroyed anyway but he has no problem using federal funds to be used in the production of the arms and weaponry responsible for "collateral damage". And it's that intention of simply wasting unused embryos which is so indicative of Dubya's idiocy. What the hell does he think is going to be done with unused embryos sitting around in labs? The embryos are the property of those who contributed to their production, but they cannot possibly make use of all the embryos that are currently just sitting around. The ones that are never used just get destroyed and that's the real waste. No one's talking about going around paying people to make some embryos to be destroyed for mere research(although, if a research company did just that--without federal funds--I think we'd see the real double standard of religion poking its ugly head in), but rather using some "leftover product" instead of simply throwing it out.

Keeping in mind that I am a HUGE proponent of stem cell research (although my own experience in biotech and my reading of the facts makes me seriously doubt that fetal stem cell research will do all that some of its proponents have suggested)...

It's RELIGION (or more generally, philosophy since religion is a rather specialized subcategory of philosophy) that makes the so-called vital difference which distinguishes the life of an alga from the life of a person.

Okay, although my statement that ths is a legal, not scientific issue still stands since law is also based on religion and philosophy.

I might take issue with "so-called vital difference". It will be hard to argue, as Mike does, that we should not impose our philosophy of what life is on others if it is that philosophy that makes us distinguish between the slime on the side of our bathroom tile and a human being.

My argument with Mike was not about abortion law (though he somehow read it that way) or about stem cell research; it was his use of the common misuse of the idea of life, that it has a scientifically defined beginning. Which. It. Doesn't.

If the pro-choice side tries to state that life "begins" at some point they will be made to look foolish by their opponents and, in this one case at least, they will deserve it. While everyoe would like to have the power of science on their side, this is an issue that must be determined by law/religion/philosophy.

One further point--while it may be sound good to say "don't impose YOUR views of life on others" the truth is that we do this all the time. Most of us, Mike included I'm guessing, would gladly see the killer of a 1 month old baby prosecuted but such views must impose our views of life upon people who take Pete Singer's philosophy to heart. While Singer believes that killing a three-day-old is no worse than killing a late-term fetus, he does believe in drawing the line somewhere. He used to suggest 28 days after birth. "I now think a 28-day cutoff is impracticably precise," he told me. "But the point remains you need cutoffs." I asked him whether he would extend the "cutoff" for euthanasia to, say, three years old, an age when children still have rather few preferences. "A three-year-old is a gray case," he said.

Being one of those "religious fundamentalists" [i](I'm not really, but I do agree with much of their argument)[/i], saying that abortion is murder is more of a rhetorical definition than a legal one. "Murder" is, in fact, a legal definition. Therefore since the law of the land currently allows abortion there is no crime. I myself, am against abortion in all instances, except when the mother's life is endangered, and yes that includes rape. And before anyone asks, no, I don't think abortion should be outlawed, but strongly discouraged. I DON'T, however, believe that it should be federally funded either.

As for Mike's poor analogy of sperm and eggs to abortion and murder. By Mike's definition, anyone who ever has a menstrual cycle and didn't conceive, or an ejaculation would by definition be a murderer.

I'm not going to bother commenting on the hypocrisy point beyond stating that being hypocritical is like going to the bathroom... sooner or later we all do it. Including, I imagine, Mike Gold. Which reminds me of my favorite Redd Foxx joke: If you don't fuck... shit. If you shit... FUCK!

Now, as to Mike's thought's on the pharmaceutical industry and Bush's "buddies". Mike, most of the laws that have benefitted the pharmaceutical industry was written when Democrats controlled the Congress. And some of our greatest civil liberties were lost under Democrat administraions. It was Bill Clinton that made your bank a federal agent that has to report everytime you take out more than $10,000 dollars from your private bank account, or for that matter put it in. The police can go pull your phone calls for the last year or so, and you guys are worried about reading lists.

A Democrat prosecutor just violated Rush Limbaugh's medical privacy records and the courts backed him up, and all you liberals are so happy that it's Rush, that no one is criticizing the prosecutor. Hell, even the ACLU was appalled enough to set aside their differences and side with Rush on this one.

So you know what? For your next blog entry let's see you be "fair and balanced" and criticize the hypocrisy of the left.

Well, let's try to get beyond the rhetoric and faulty analogies (Mike included). The embryonic stem cell issue is NOT the same as the abortion issue. Although both issues may deal with the fate of fetuses, there's not much point in denying that a fetus in a woman's womb has a reasonably good chance of becoming a fully-formed human if it's not aborted.

In the case of embryonic stem cell research, there seems to be a common misconception that abortion is the primary source of embryonic stem cells. It's not. The biggest source of embryonic stem cells is the left-overs from in-vitro fertilization. There is little likelihood that these embryos will ever become fully-formed humans. Yes, it's possible -- but not likely. In fact, if not used in research, there's a very good chance the labs that store them will eventually destroy them, because it costs money to keep those freezers running.

I'm ambivalent about abortion. I have no reservations about embryonic stem cell research.

Actually, Rick, I'm inclined to agree with you about the the stem cell issue. To a point. I'm not against using aborted fetuses or invitro cells, provided the permission of parents or donors is obtained, I really have no problem. I know that sounds contradictory, and perhaps it is, but if we can make some good come out of a bad situation I have no problem with that.

That doesn't mean I favor federal OR state sponsored financing. Now if private individuals want to raise the money on their own and TAKE THE RISK that it will pan out, I also have no problem with that. Mike eschews the thought of private companies making money off of possible cures or treatments but the truth is that most of the advancements we have today were not funded by the government but by private investors. The simple truth is that pharceutical companies spend billions to develop these drugs and they deserve to earn their money back and yes, make a nice profit as well. But they don't hit a slam dunk every time they try. And there's the risk of lawsuits if they put a drug out too early. Look at Phen-phen as an example.

I also have to admit that like Tom Cruise, I think the American public depends too much on drugs anyway. Most of which I don't think we need.

Imagine you have had 23 Christmas eves in your home. Now imagine the government saying you won’t be making it to 25 because your living room needs to be a gas pump. Across the street from the new deluxe hotel, entertainment Mecca that they are building.

I ask you only this one question and then read the article if you want.

Shouldn’t the family who has lived threw the hard times reap the benefits of an improved economy?

Not corporate America via the federal government.

Eminent Domain has a new definition.

Mike,

Just Blogged for the first time. And I didn't read the topic just sent out a thought, but to begin with your first paragraph. I would have to say George Bush mabey still believes the earth is Flat my friend.

Well it is flat in some places.

Although I don't question the sincerity of anyone's beliefs, it does amuse me that all the people here debating the morality of abortion are men. Flo Kennedy once said, "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

If men got pregnant, they'd be WO-MEN.

Wow. You're so CLE-VER...

I know. It's a gift.

I'm ambivalent about abortion (not stem cell research, because they really are separate issues) precisely because I am a man. It's not a decision I'll ever personally have to make; not my body that some would like to see regulated at a federal level.

On a related note, I'm still waiting for the great believers in individual rights, minimal government interference, and family values to come to the aid of the family that decided to stop their child's chemo and radiation therapy. The government not only seized that child, but all the other children in the family as well.

Let's put aside the family's personal reasons for their decision, and consider a few salient facts:

1)There is no established "cure" for cancer. The "success" of radiation and chemo is often measured in terms of a few extra months of life.

2)The pain and discomfort caused by traditional cancer treatments is often as bad or worse than the disease.

3)Many adults elect to stop traditional cancer treatments because of #2. They may try alternative treatments (mostly without much success) or simply decide to die with a little dignity.

But apparently a child (actually a teenager in this case) isn't allowed to make that choice, even with the support of his/her parents.

And jumping to the other non-sequitur introduced in this thread, it was mostly the "liberal" judges on the Supreme Court that gave the thumbs up to Walmart bulldozing your family home in the name of "benefit to the community."

"I'm ambivalent about abortion (not stem cell research, because they really are separate issues) precisely because I am a man. It's not a decision I'll ever personally have to make; not my body that some would like to see regulated at a federal level."

Hell, it's not an issue every woman will ever have to make either. So the only people we'll allow to speak on any subject is anyone who has to go through it? I've never been shot before, but I'm reasonably sure I won't enjoy it.

The fact is, that when you're "under the gun", so to speak, you tend NOT to make the best decisions. And yeah, if I'm the man and you come home after aborting my child and you didn't even ask me what I thought cause it was YOUR decision, then don't expect me to be all lovey-dovey, honey, I'm there for you when you didn't even think what I thought mattered or gave a damn if it did.

"But apparently a child (actually a teenager in this case) isn't allowed to make that choice, even with the support of his/her parents."

I'm not really understanding your point here. Are you saying that children are capable of making life and death decisions in their best interests? I'll grant you that a teenager might be better able to grasp the issues at hand, but I think that's a judgement call based on the intelligence and maturity of the child. One age doesn't fit all.

"And jumping to the other non-sequitur introduced in this thread, it was mostly the "liberal" judges on the Supreme Court that gave the thumbs up to Walmart bulldozing your family home in the name of "benefit to the community.""

I don't know if it's that non-sequitur. One of Mike's arguments on the whole stem cell thing is that "the government is your friend", more so than private business, so he's probably right on with that call. In fact, I haven't heard much outrage from the left on the whole decision. I guess to them's it's no different than taking your house and land to save a endangered species. And they get more money in taxes to boot. SCORE!

You may never have been shot, but it's not a physical impossibility that someone will take a shot at you -- and once the bullet is inside you, I'd like to think that you have a choice about what happens to it. For example, let's say the bullet is lodged near your spine, and there's a 50/50 chance that the operation to remove it may paralyze you for life. I'll bet you'd like to make an informed decision on that one.

Carrying a child to term is not without risks to the mother, and in some cases the courts have even ruled on what the mother can and cannot do during that pregnancy. My wife didn't smoke or drink ore eat food containing preservative during either of her pregnancies, but I wouldn't be in favor of the government requiring that all pregnant women follow some mandatory government-sanctioned lifestyle.

No offense, but I just can't seem to generate much sympathy for the would-be father who wants to make those decision for the woman either.

As for not understanding my other point, let me spell it out more clearly: I think the parents of an underage child should determine what's best for that child, except in cases in which their judgment is clearly impaired or they want to embark on a course of action irrefutably more harmful that what the government might like them to do -- and cancer treatment is one of those areas where this is no irrefutably "better" solution. Sometimes traditional treatments work; most of the time they don't -- and they always have devastasting short-term effects.

Personally, if I underwent an initial course of chemo and radiation therapy with little or no improvement, I probably wouldn't go back for another round -- and if my child were in the same position, I'd want her to have the same choice.

Be honest Rick. Have you read ANYTHING I've written where I even HINTED at the idea that a father should MAKE the decision for the mother? My point is, was, and always shall be, that to say that what a Father thinks is irrelevant is a stupid, if not bogus, argument to make. All of my arguments center on that very point, not that the woman should be MADE to do anything that she doesn't want to do.

The ONLY exception to that rule for me would be when the woman is unable or UNWILLING to make a decision that would affect her health or life. Even then I'm likely to side with the woman's wish.

Nor have any of my arguments against abortion been without regard to the issue of the mother's health. To be honest, and maybe you HAVE, but I've yet to hear any "rational" person make a serious argument that the mother should carry a baby to term REGARDLESS of the mother's health.

Dammit, this was supposed to be a thread about stem cell research, and somebody had to go lob an abortion grenade.

Actually, that was my point.

It started with my comparing the stem cell research to abortion, but only with respect to each being issues that are seen by most in black-and-white terms. I was discussing stem cell research and I made no analogy to abortion other than to point this Mr. A thing out.

But somehow an abortion debate took off. And we got into some other interesting discussions like who makes decisions on behalf of children and the nature of chemotherapy.

Part of the fun of doing a blog. Launch grenades, back off, and see what happens.

Hmmmm. I think I'll see if I can pitch a "Dummies Guide To Pavlov" book.

Oh, and there are people who are opposed to abortion even at the risk of the mother's health. All of the ones I know (personally) are devout Catholics, so perhaps that's part of their bit. I don't know, but I do know my ex-wife would never let me take her to a Catholic hospital because of that.

eclark:

re: "Have you read ANYTHING I've written where I even HINTED at the idea that a father should MAKE the decision for the mother?"

Well, maybe it was your use of the term "my child" rather than "our child." Or the fact that you went off on that particularly whacky tangent ("if I'm the man and you come home after aborting my child and you didn't even ask me...") when nothing in my post said or implied that the decision to have an abortion should disregard any implications or consequences of the act.

Mike:

You made a fairly direct analogy between stem-cell research and abortion and put a little extra effort into using somewhat inflammatory rhetoric to characterize a certain category of abortion opponents. And if I know you at all, you did it precisely to evoke a response.

"Somewhat imflammatory rhetoric"? Jeez, I AM getting old, if it's only "somewhat."

Launching grenades for a half century...

Well, at least you've still got a knack for hyperbole. "Half" a century is stretching it a bit, isn't it?

Thanks for the compliment, but I turn 55 this August. And when it came to developing verbal skills, I was unfortunately precocious.

Oh, and I learned English from reading Li'l Abner and Pogo in the old Chicago Daily News.

"Well, maybe it was your use of the term "my child" rather than "our child."

I'm sorry, but that's just.... silly. I mean, that's like assuming that I'm too stupid to realize that I had a partner in creating the child. If you have children, do you introduce them as "Your child" or "My wife and mine's child"? Oh wait. I'm don't actually mean that you OWN the child as in slave-like terms, okay?

Cool. Now we're on to cloning.

Which I'm in favor of, by the way. Can't think of a single thing wrong with it.

eclark:

Yes, I have children. Do you? I've also been faced with discussing the abortion option with my wife. Have you? And if my wife is present when introducing our children, I certainly say "our" not "my".

And I'm not sure how stupid you are -- but the tone of that particular rant and at least one previous post on this blog seem to indicate that your relations with the opposite sex are somewhat...strained.

Or maybe that passes for humor where you come from.

"Yes, I have children. Do you? "
No.

"I've also been faced with discussing the abortion option with my wife. Have you? "

No wife either. And not the point. How would you feel if your wife finds out she's pregnant, and without bothering to find out how you feel about it, she has an abortion because, apparently, "it's none of your business" if she has a child or not.

"And if my wife is present when introducing our children, I certainly say "our" not "my"."

And if she's not present? Does sole ownership suddenly revert back to you?

"And I'm not sure how stupid you are -- but the tone of that particular rant and at least one previous post on this blog seem to indicate that your relations with the opposite sex are somewhat...strained."

My how perceptive you are... not. But you seem determined to label me and toss me in a particular corner so go ahead.

I'm merely dispassionately trying to argue a point, however, I have to constantly keep defending myself from erroneous assumptions about me.

"Cool. Now we're on to cloning.

Which I'm in favor of, by the way. Can't think of a single thing wrong with it."

I wrote an interesting sci-fi tale about cloning. I think you'd love it.

eclark:

You wouldn't know the point if someone poked you in the eye with it, and I'm still searching for the place where I said or implied anything like a woman should simply make the abortion decision without at least considering the implications of the act. Or anything about my "ownership" of anyone.

You really know how to take the ball and run with it...in the wrong direction. And the fact that you consider yourself "dispassionate" is, at best, laughable.

But on the extremely remote chance that you might perceive a glimpse of the point, here it is:

The decision to have an abortion is a binary one: 0 or 1. No or yes. There is no middle ground. No compromise position. It's not a decision that should be made lightly, but the fact that you contributed the sperm is only one of the factors -- and sometimes not necessarily one of the most important ones. If the man and the woman disagree, somebody ain't gonna get what they want.

And IMHO, ultimately it's the woman's decision, because she's the one incurring the health risks and obligations for 9 months.

When they figure out a way for men to have babies, maybe I'll have a little more sympathy toward you pissing and moaning about maybe not being consulted. But in the meantime I remain ambivalent about abortion, because there's approximately zero probability that it's a decision that I personally will ever have to make.

"You wouldn't know the point if someone poked you in the eye with it, and I'm still searching for the place where I said or implied anything like a woman should simply make the abortion decision without at least considering the implications of the act. Or anything about my "ownership" of anyone."

Good. Now you have an inkling of what it feels like when you do it to someone else. And since we're in insult mode: I say "inkling" because obviously your pea-sized dinosaur brain is too primitive to comprehend what it is to actually "understand" something. You feel better now that we've traded insults or you want to do it some more? Doesn't really solve anything, but if it makes you feel good, I'm up for it.

And just so you know... That's what I mean by dispassionate. ... Not taking something so personally.

I know you understand what I'm saying because you repeat it back to me, but it's like there's a filter or something that turns everything around.

I'll provide an easy example... The following was supposed to be a joke:

Me: "Oh wait. I'm don't actually mean that you OWN the child as in slave-like terms, okay?"

You:"And if my wife is present when introducing our children, I certainly say "our" not "my"."

Me: "And if she's not present? Does sole ownership suddenly revert back to you?"

You:"I'm still searching for the place where I said or implied ... anything about my "ownership" of anyone."

Now just so you know the words "my", 'mine" and "ours" are "possessive" pronouns that denote ownership. Just the same I went out of my way to point out that I knew you didn't really "OWN" your children and you came back with the suggestion that that's what I meant anyway.

Or this argument:
Me:"Be honest Rick. Have you read ANYTHING I've written where I even HINTED at the idea that a father should MAKE the decision for the mother? My point is, was, and always shall be, that to say that what a Father thinks is irrelevant is a stupid, if not bogus, argument to make. All of my arguments center on that very point, not that the woman should be MADE to do anything that she doesn't want to do.

You: "When they figure out a way for men to have babies, maybe I'll have a little more sympathy toward you pissing and moaning about maybe not being consulted. But in the meantime I remain ambivalent about abortion, because there's approximately zero probability that it's a decision that I personally will ever have to make."

What the HELL does the man HAVING the baby have to do with ANYTHING? That's a bogus argument because it's NEVER GONNA HAPPEN. It DOESN'TMATTER if the woman is the one who makes the ultimate decision. What MATTERS is that she make the RIGHT decision, at least for her. WHY? Because she can't take it back.

The POINT, my dear dense friend, is NOT the DECISION to abort or not, but the CONSEQUENCES of the decision to abort or not. THAT's why it matters what the man thinks about abortion. No, the MAN does not MAKE the final decision, but what he THINKS AFFECTS the final decision. The ONLY way it COULDN'T is if the man doesn't KNOW about the pregnancy and/or abortion.

You want to imply that I think what the man thinks is the overwhelming factor in the decision. Never said that, NEVER implied it. I never brought up any other factors because they were not at issue. I didn't bring up a host of issues that could affect her decision. Income, education, number of children already, whether or not she can even have anymore children, where's she's living, etc.

But no one breaks into stem cell debate and yells it doesn't matter what her INCOME is for her to make an abortion decision.

eclark:

While your looking up words in the dictionary, try "denote" and "connote"... and maybe "semantic". But just for the record, my old Webster's dictionary defines "our" as "pertaining or belonging to us." Note that "belonging" comes second. But that's falling into the semantic trap. And I hope you don't retort with some quip about whether I meant "pertaining to" or "belonging to" when we both know I meant neither.

I could take apart every sentence you write, and pick it apart word by word in a haphazard context-free manner. But what would be the point? Would that somehow prove my position is more valid than yours?

I suspect that if you looked at the history of our little debates on this blog, you'd find that they mostly consist of me stating some position, with which you then choose to quibble. (I could be wrong.)

And unfortunately, I respond. I'll try not to make that mistake in the future, because nothing is accomplished. The argument sketch was funny when Monty Python did it. Here it's just more of the same old, boring "You're a poopy butt!" "No! You're a poopy butt!"

eclark:

You frequently subsitute semantics for analysis, and you either don't know or choose not to acknowledge the often critical context-sensitive difference between denotation and connotation.

But while we're parsing every word in the other guy's post for some flaw we can exploit, let me politely point out that I am not now, nor am I every likely to be, your friend. Oh, wait, did you mean that sarcastically? Darn. I was just going by the dictionary definition of friend.

And thanks for finally stating your position rather than simply hunting for words in mine that would prove its inherent invalidity (look that one up; it has a couple of meanings).

But, no surprise, I have to partially disagree. The fact that "it's never gonna happen" to me is precisely why I'm ambivalent about abortion. I find your "never been shot" analogy far more "bogus" precisely because it COULD happen to you. And IMHO, in the "never been shot" analogy, the pregnant woman facing the abortion decision has more in common with the shootee than the shooter.

Finally, I sure appreciate you clarifying the moral dilemma that you have admittedly never faced, and that everyone on this blog probably assumed didn't exist until you pointed it out. Looking back on my previous posts, I now see how they might be misinterpreted by a deep thinker like yourself to be a cheerful endorsement of indiscriminate abortion on demand, encouraging women every where to abort those pesky fetuses today and never give it a second thought!

eclark:

You frequently subsitute semantics for analysis, and you either don't know or choose not to acknowledge the often critical context-sensitive difference between denotation and connotation.

But while we're parsing every word in the other guy's post for some flaw we can exploit, let me politely point out that I am not now, nor am I every likely to be, your friend. Oh, wait, did you mean that sarcastically? Darn. I was just going by the dictionary definition of friend.

And thanks for finally stating your position rather than simply hunting for words in mine that would prove its inherent invalidity (look that one up; it has a couple of meanings).

But, no surprise, I have to partially disagree. The fact that "it's never gonna happen" to me is precisely why I'm ambivalent about abortion. I find your "never been shot" analogy far more "bogus" precisely because it COULD happen to you. And IMHO, in the "never been shot" analogy, the pregnant woman facing the abortion decision has more in common with the shootee than the shooter.

Finally, I sure appreciate you clarifying the moral dilemma that you have admittedly never faced, and that everyone on this blog probably assumed didn't exist until you pointed it out. Looking back on my previous posts, I now see how they might be misinterpreted by a deep thinker like yourself to be a cheerful endorsement of indiscriminate abortion on demand, encouraging women every where to abort those pesky fetuses today and never give it a second thought!

No doubt you'll latch onto the bit about "personally never faced" like a snarling dog with a new bone. Go for it.

I was kind of interested in the original article here, but I would like to know where the comments atributed to the various parties come from. It's all too easy to say "Bush said this dumb thing" because he has said so many, but without checkable references it's hard to pick out truths from half-truths, from heresay, from entirely made up stuff.

Whoa. I have to apologize for the accumulation of posts from me. I thought the first one didn't get posted, which I thought was just as well because I decided I didn't like it anyway. The second got posted twice for a similar reason.

Here's a link to Bush's speech on his original stem cell research decision from last year:

If that comes across as raw HTML, blame Mike's blog for claiming "you may use HTML tags for style."

Darn. It came across as nothing. Guess you'll just have to copy and paste:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html

"No doubt you'll latch onto the bit about "personally never faced" like a snarling dog with a new bone. Go for it."

Nah, us "deep thinkers" always get a headache from banging our heads against the wall when we talk to the common masses.

As I've said, I don't take anything I've said to you, or heard from you personally. Even if you meant it at the time. Hell, I wouldn't know you if I tripped over you, so why waste all that energy? And I'm quite capable of liking someone with whom I have philosphical differences.

I look forward to our next debate.

I'm confused about where the hypocrisy is. You speak about "shoving your belief's down other people's throats" but funding abortion and/or stem cell research with federal funds IS shoving your beliefs down my throat. I'm totally against abortion (and nominally against fetal stem cell research... maybe... not sure yet) so while it's the law of the land -- "your belief" -- by making me pay for it with my federal dollars your shoving it down my throat.

Abortion should have been (and will again someday when the frightfully applied Roe v Wade gets rightfully shot down) be an issue of State's rights, not Federal. Then, if you live in a black state, you can have your beliefs, and if I live in a black state, I can move to a green state in line with my beliefs.

I don't see any hypocrisy because Mr. Bush doesn't have the right to pass a law just because he feels like it, but he can make decisions that try to serve everyone as best as possible.