The Watering Hole
2001
Shinbone
readers bend a few elbows, and fire back
ssssssssss
12/26/01
How many times have YOU been pregnant? You bible thumpers make me sick!
Terry
ssssssssss
9/6/01
Mr. Clark:
Good article on the stem-cell debate Blinded Science: The un-ethics of "extra" embryos (7/20/01). Here is another point to (hopefully) complement your eloquent article. It is a conclusion to the argument over when life begins.
Does life begin at conception, or at birth, or somewhere in between? Pro-abortionists and stem-cell researchers sometimes state with confidence that the beginning of life doesn't happen until late in the mother's term, even as late as the moment of birth. (I wonder where the partial-birth abortionists place life's beginnings on the timeline? Aren't these fetuses "born" before they are destroyed?)
It's obvious that life must begin SOMETIME, either at conception, but certainly before birth (premature fetuses survive as young as 25 weeks). It is clear that empirical science will NEVER quantify this most elusive beginning, because it CANNOT BE QUANTIFIED. What measurand do we use? Heartbeat, brainwaves, muscle movement, REM sleep, memory? All measurable quantities can be argued as life's beginnings, or not, depending on one's point of view. We must all accept that no scientific measurement can prove the beginning of the spark of life, or the entering of the soul, or the infinite beginnings within every human. This is an area beyond the realm of science, a horrifying concept to a scientist. (The universe is full of unexplained phenomena, life and death are only two examples.)
Having accepted the premise that no one can detect another life's beginning, now apply it to abortion or to embryonic stem cell research. These endeavors always conclude in the destruction of a mass of human cells called an embryo. It follows that there is only one responsible and ethical choice: to assume that life starts right at conception, and thus avoid abortion and embryo killing. Why? Because any other choice exposes one to the ultimate risk of killing innocent, defenseless human life, a choice that must be avoided at all costs by all right-minded people with a conscience. The only means to avoid this exposure is to assume the fertilized egg, or zygote, is completely human, whose destruction cannot be justified on any terms: ethical, scientific, or constitutional.
If in the future this argument is somehow proved wrong, no harm was ever done, all embryos were saved. If the argument proves out correct, then all humans have been saved.
John -- San Jose, CA
-- Thanks, John. I certainly can't dispute your argument that any uncertainty over when life begins should be counted in favor of the unborn. No civilized society would consider the possibility that something might be a person as a license to kill it.
However, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with the idea that the beginning of life cannot be quantified. I think today's understanding of genetics proves to us beyond any doubt that a new individual member of the human species is created at the instant of fertilization. The problem I see with those who have christened themselves as the "scientific community" is not that they don't know this to be true, but that they believe they have the power to alter the truth through the clever manipulation of language. An example of this would be their creation in the public mind of a semi-human level of existence, simply by coining the completely unscientific term "pre-embryo."
By the way, you've probably noticed how many people who take it upon themselves to speak on behalf of "science" actually justify their views by doubting whether an embryo has a soul. One of these is Rep. James Greenwood (R, Pa.), who tried to amend a congressional ban on cloning to allow the cloning of embryos for research. Greenwood stated quite assuredly that an embryo in a petri dish has no soul. But then, if we were to challenge Greenwood's own right to life by asserting that he has no soul, how would he prove otherwise? The possibilities are fascinating. -- DC
ssssssssss
8/3/01
Kellen Jr. said that he wanted to go to Washington. Kellen Sr. wouldn't sign the papers ... period.
What an ass Kellen Sr. has made of himself to be the sole delegate of where his son would attend college. When in fact, the newly hired Miami head coach, Al Coker, is himself a Caucasian.
What a tragedy, that a human being that has had to deal with racism in some of his entire life, subjects his children to the same racism, and plays it off as what "we (uninformed and naive) should consider as racism." Why else did Kellen Jr. choose Miami? Perhaps to be on the freakin' other side of the United States from his control freak father?
You be the judge.
Bobby
-- see Pigmented Pigskin: Washington too white for Winslow (6/18/01) -- DC
ssssssssss
7/19/01
Sir,
I came upon your publication via a quote linked to your website. Your commentaries are right on target. The reading is magnetic and I have read each and every editorial and saved the website on my "favorites" list. I must say your thoughts are clear, lucid, and logical which, by contrast, exposes liberal thinking for what it is: arrogant, assuming, and condescending. Keep up the good work.
Robert -- Nixa, MO
ssssssssss
2/9/01
I was just reading your piece on college names and how they offend "college liberals." What's in a Team Name?: Revolution, if you're a college liberal (12/26/00) Well, I happen to be a college liberal as well as a college football player. I know that conservative ideology doesn't really allow for such contingencies as these, but I am not alone. First, I must say that it is certainly not one of the favorite causes of the left to work themselves into a furor over such things. There are far more pressing worries: overpopulation, global warming, corporate domination of government and so on. But I must say that it is a tad embarrassing to look at our past and see what the level of racism that our country was (and to a degree still is) comfortable with. As Chris Rock pointed out, would we allow a team to be called the "Newark (racial slur, thoughtfully deleted by the diligent Shinbone editor)?" Of course not. So why is "Washington Redskins" okay? Of course I realize that we also have the "Fighting Irish," "Demon Deacons," "Tarheels" and "49ers," to name a few. The difference is that these groups were never the victims of oppression and genocide to the degree that Native Americans were. It is one thing to destroy a people, it is another to objectify them and then laugh when they are offended. Maybe you should try to think about it from their perspective and not just yours. I love football, but I love my country more. That is why I don't think we should make our great and tragic history into a joke that is at others' expense.
Thank you.
Wes -- Destin, FL
-- Editor's Note: When the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents, prodded by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, changed the EMU nickname from the Hurons to the Eagles, they cited protest letters as the impetus for their decision. One problem, though ... none of those letters was written by a Huron Indian. The Hurons themselves, not just in Michigan, but also from the remaining tribes in Quebec and Oklahoma, supported the school's traditional Huron name. It seems that the liberals at EMU neglected to tell those people what their perspective should be. -- DC
The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press