Post by: Ben on April 03, 2007, 04:14:05 AM
-----------------------
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/03/28/notes032807.DTL
When Liberals Rule The World
Stats say the GOP is dying. But red-staters are breeding like drunken ferrets. Who wins?
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Here's the good news: The Republican party is dying. Slow, painful, twitching, secreting war and intolerance and desperation like a fetid gas, snarling and gagging like Jabba the Hutt being choked by the hard chain of progress and hope and relaxed social mores and an upcoming Generation Next that seems to sense that screaming about gays and women's rights and Muslims and drugs actually doesn't do much to move the human experiment forward in the slightest.
Is this not delicious? Is this not cause for rejoicing? According to Pew Research, the percentage of young 'uns age 18 to 25 (a.k.a. Generation Next) who identify with Republicans has been in steady decline since the early '90s, and now hovers around a meager 35 percent, down from a high of 55 percent in the Reagan-toxic early-90s, and is still dropping, whereas fully 48 percent of 18-to-25-year-olds now lean Democratic ... and rising.
Seems Generation Next tend to be more socially liberal and much less worried about the trembling "sanctity" of the failed nuclear family, and are overall less inclined to align with a particular religion. Indeed, it almost makes you want to weep and sigh and go buy a large grass-fed free-range organic hybrid vibrator.
Ah, but there is a flip side. A counterargument. A dark cloud of righteous bleakness and it looms like a giant synthetic cheesecake-scented Glade PlugIn of potential misery.
It is this: According to another set of data, for the past 30 years or so, conservatives -- particularly those of the right-wing red-state Christian strain -- have been out-breeding liberals by a margin of at least 20 percent, if not far more.
It's true. The reason? Why, God loves babies, of course. White American babies, most especially. Also: issues of space, religion, sexual orientation and, of course, conscience. Or, you know, lack thereof.
One theory goes like this: Libs are generally more socially conscious and hence tend to actually give a modicum of thought to what it means to pop out a brood of children in this modern overstuffed age. Also, many other liberal bohos are (admittedly) happy selfish suckwads who want all the modern booty for themselves and won't want to give up the Ducati and the plasma and the biannual trip to Cinque Terre for the sake of a pod of rug rats and 15 grand a year (each) for private kindergarten. Translation: Libs just aren't procreating like they could/should be.
Conservative Christians, of course, have no such conscience. Among the right-wing God-lovin' set, there is often little real awareness of planetary health or resource abuse or the notion that birth control is actually a very, very good idea indeed, and therefore it's completely natural to worship at the altar of minivans and SUVs and megachurches and massive all-American entitlement and have little qualm about popping out six, seven, 19 gloopy tots to populate the world with frat boys and Ford F-150 buyers and food court managers.
I always assumed it might actually be a good thing that conservatives breed so mindlessly, because all those unhappy neocon kids, all those repressed misled tots grow up and eventually begin to (well, sometimes) think for themselves and ultimately do what any good kid does: rebel against their parents' silly dogma and become a bit more open-minded and hopeful, right?
Not exactly. Apparently, according to the research, four out of five kids actually stick with the political affiliation of their parents, generation after generation, with religious conservatives far more unlikely than their liberal brethren to allow their kids to develop the capacity for independent thought (given how it's so, you know, dangerous to America). Also, one word: homeschooling. I'm just sayin'.
So then, the big question: How can these two major demographics exist at the same time? How can we be enjoying the slow death of the GOP along with an impressive surge in young Democrats, and yet simultaneously be undergoing this quiet toxic swelling in ranks of the army of conservative autobots? The logic breaks down all over.
It seems impossible. Either we are we headed toward a new dawn full of smart social liberalism, perhaps leading to concomitant ideas of peace and tolerance and a newly evolved American identity, or there is another massive group lurking in the shadows, entirely overlooked by Pew Research, a seething army of religious conservatives who are working like a spiritual STD to force us backward once again, much the way the Bush regime brutally reversed decades of social, environmental, fiscal and international progress and made war and isolationism and megachurch evangelicals the lords of the playground for a shocklingly painful blip of time.
Hell, maybe it's both. Maybe what we're getting with these two sets of data is simply a glimpse of the next two major phases of the culture, the next two major swings of the sociopolitical pendulum, in sequence.
In other words, maybe we are indeed headed into a delightful progressive liberal phase, one with the potential to radically, even permanently change the way we view gender and identity and family and even America's role in the world.
But then the sad recoil. The clench, the terror, the loud screeching from all those red-state kids who are being taught right now to despise change and fear alternative views and see anything that's not wrapped in the flag or the Bible or a McDonald's wrapper as evil and dangerous and worthy of derision/elimination.
Or maybe there's another possibility. Perhaps it's something even more wild and delicious and improbable, and we are all, liberal and conservative alike, evolving more toward social progressiveness merely by default, not through social engineering or political maneuvering or reactionary Christian dread but merely as a nearly unconscious by-product of the times. In other words, maybe everyone is trending more progressive and open merely by existing on this planet today, almost despite ourselves.
I know. Completely idiotic. I must be totally drunk.
Option 3 is, of course, the most likely: Both sets of data are full of flaw and misinterpretation and wishful thinking. Neither is completely correct and by the way statistics are for dreamers and acidheads and pollsters and should be thrown over the shoulder, like salt, right before you go back for another Xanax and a beer.
And hence we are, as ever, simply a mad intoxicated mishmash of reactions and beliefs and ideologies, a God-obsessed sex-crazed drug-lovin' sociopolitical train wreck of a country that doesn't really know its ass from a hole in the ground or its God from a burp in the sky.
Personally, I'm going with the new liberal dawn thing. Hell, it doesn't hurt to dream, right?
Post by: Manedwolf on April 03, 2007, 04:22:34 AM
The whole premise of the article begs the question...How are people who are unarmed and get scared when they see a gun going to "rule the world" vs. people that ARE armed?
Post by: client32 on April 03, 2007, 04:35:24 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 03, 2007, 04:51:06 AM
Whatever, man. Gonna go add to the population now.
Post by: roo_ster on April 03, 2007, 05:18:26 AM
That outcome is not surprising, considering the general (hostile) attitude toward children and their parents exhibited in the column in particular and in the city in general.
Between lack of children and preventable, fatal diseases (AIDS), the lefties in SF will have to rely on conversions and imports to maintain their numbers. They made thier bed. Let them sleep in it.
Post by: K Frame on April 03, 2007, 05:27:14 AM
Gee, I wonder why that is...
I heard a rumor once about San Francisco that may explain it...
Nah, no one does that...
Do they?
Post by: AJ Dual on April 03, 2007, 05:28:49 AM
The '06 Democrat landslides were caused by two things.
1. While the Mainstream left-of-center media is dying, and the decline still shows no signs of slowing, for now, they still have a majority market share. In the coming completely level and democratic (pun intended) new-media market, political self-selection and narrowcasting will let the American population consume the media of their choice. The ever so slight pressure to the left will finally lift.
We only need endure the MSM for a few more election cycles. In a way '06 was more a referendum on the MSM's ability to steer the public debate as they saw fit (Iraq, obviously), than it was about the Democrats.
2. For over 100 years, no seated second-term President's political party has held on to Congress. If the Democrats didn't win then, when could they? And also keep in mind that the key races that gave both houses to the party were won by running harder to the right than the worthless RINO incumbents.
Hardly a mandate.
And yes, Red-Staters are out-breeding the Blue-Staters. Ever since Roe. V. Wade, abortion has been like negative compound interest against the political left in this country, unions continue to wane, and the MSM keeps shrinking.
Long term, the only thing the Left can hang their hats on is illegal immigration. If we can cap that, or at least keep them out of the voting pool, the Left is ultimately doomed save for their minor urban fiefdoms.
And another thing, this is more conjecture on my part, but I also think what the author sees as a resurgent awakening on the Left may well just be Right-Libertarians. They're uncomfortable with the Religious-Right for sure, and like their "dirty television shows" and Playboy, but definitely don't like wealth-transfer or anyone coming after their guns either.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 03, 2007, 05:54:41 AM
Post by: Antibubba on April 03, 2007, 07:14:36 AM
Post by: El Tejon on April 03, 2007, 07:28:57 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 03, 2007, 08:06:38 AM
Quote
I also think what the author sees as a resurgent awakening on the Left may well just be Right-Libertarians. They're uncomfortable with the Religious-Right for sure, and like their "dirty television shows" and Playboy, but definitely don't like wealth-transfer or anyone coming after their guns either.
True. Another thing often overlooked is that much of the dissatisfaction with Bush and with Iraq is coming from the Right. Even if Righties support the war, they often don't think Bush is prosecuting it strongly enough.
Post by: Tallpine on April 03, 2007, 08:17:58 AM
Quote
Completely idiotic. I must be totally drunk.
Sums it up for me
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 03, 2007, 08:22:26 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on April 03, 2007, 08:27:56 AM
And another thing, this is more conjecture on my part, but I also think what the author sees as a resurgent awakening on the Left may well just be Right-Libertarians. They're uncomfortable with the Religious-Right for sure, and like their "dirty television shows" and Playboy, but definitely don't like wealth-transfer or anyone coming after their guns either.
*raises hand as one*
And that, I think, is what the hand-wringing left fears most.
People who don't want religiosity shoved down their throats, want the government's fingers out of their wallet, want parents to be parents and take responsibility for their kids, don't want to be protected from themselves...
...and might enjoy drinking a nonfat soy latte while cleaning their AK-47.
It shorts out their tiny, cringing sheeplike brains.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 03, 2007, 10:52:06 AM
Quote
"San Francisco is the least child-friendly city in the US. The stats bear this out as SF having the fewest kids of any major city."
Gee, I wonder why that is...
I heard a rumor once about San Francisco that may explain it...
Gee, I wonder why that is...
I heard a rumor once about San Francisco that may explain it...
If only colons and tonsils could get pregnant...
Some of them must be lacking the LOV gene.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 03, 2007, 01:33:27 PM
Cramming religiosity down their throats? Gimme a break. At "wost", all Christians want is to keep unborn babies alive and make sure that marriage stays marriage. And maybe make sure that children aren't exposed to sex too early.
And egads, man. The far leftist could teach Christians a thing or two (or three, or four) about cramming their beliefs down peoples' throats...
Post by: Lee on April 03, 2007, 01:40:54 PM
Quote
a God-obsessed sex-crazed drug-lovin' sociopolitical train wreck of a country
And they say you can't have it all....I love America!
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 03, 2007, 01:47:03 PM
Quote
At wost, all Christians want is to keep unborn babies alive and make sure that marriage stays marriage. And maybe make sure that children aren't exposed to sex too early.
Yes. At worst.
Post by: De Selby on April 03, 2007, 01:52:30 PM
Post by: Unisaw on April 03, 2007, 02:55:07 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on April 03, 2007, 03:24:40 PM
Quote
People who don't want religiosity shoved down their throats,
Ya' know, I tried to start a Lutheran Jihad, really. Didn't get very far, after coffee and cookies that Sunday morning, everybody wanted to go home to watch football and have a nap. I'll try harder next Sunday, ok? There must be some way I can shove religion down somebody's throat, since it seems to be a rampant trend these days.
Post by: Standing Wolf on April 03, 2007, 05:13:50 PM
Quote
I know. Completely idiotic. I must be totally drunk.
Just when I was beginning to think the "article" was a classic case of too much beer on the cheerios, the "author" settles the matter in short order.
I just had a hunch.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 03, 2007, 05:32:34 PM
Cramming religiosity down their throats? Gimme a break. At "wost", all Christians want is to keep unborn babies alive and make sure that marriage stays marriage. And maybe make sure that children aren't exposed to sex too early.
1. Are you volunteering to feed them? How about rape and incest? I feel it's a really personal issue, IMO. And often complicated.
2. WHY do you care? Does it affect your marriage? Why should it? It doesn't affect me at all. It's their life.
3. That's the job of parents, not theocratic statists. And that's what I'm afraid too many become.
Post by: grampster on April 03, 2007, 05:40:38 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 03, 2007, 08:25:31 PM
Quote
1. Are you volunteering to feed them? How about rape and incest? I feel it's a really personal issue, IMO. And often complicated.
So, when I say someone shouldn't be murdered, I'm now obligated to feed them? What about rape and incest? We should kill kids because Daddy was a rapist or a close relative of Mommy? Personal, complicated? Since when do we let people decide to kill one another because the issues are personal and complicated? Why can't you answer these questions yourself? They're not hard.
Quote
2. WHY do you care? Does it affect your marriage? Why should it? It doesn't affect me at all. It's their life.
Then why do you want your govt. to recognize it? Keep it in the bedroom. Quote
3. That's the job of parents, not theocratic statists. And that's what I'm afraid too many become.
Yes, it should be up to parents, not schools, which is probably what HTG was talking about. In any case, a few moralistic laws do not a theocracy make. "Theocracy" is mainly a bugaboo word that is best avoided in these discussions. This ain't the Middle East.
Post by: De Selby on April 03, 2007, 08:34:03 PM
Quote
This ain't the Middle East.
You've got an interesting point about the killing of babies here though...
If every abortion is an act of murder, how do murders committed by Islamic terrorists compare to the number of murders committed by Americans?
It seems to me that you'd be hard pressed to condemn any other society on the planet as brutal, if you believe that Americans are responsible for a million or so murders of babies every year.
Do you really think America is one of the most blood thirsty, baby murdering nations on the planet?
Post by: Warren on April 03, 2007, 08:41:57 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 03, 2007, 08:57:22 PM
Do you really think America is one of the most blood thirsty, baby murdering nations on the planet?
Probably, although I haven't compared the numbers. We might compare favorably to China. My remark about the Middle East had to do with the fact that theocracy might be a realistic term to use in discussing politics there, but it's not realistic when discussing various American policies. As I said, actual theocracy is much more involved than simply writing some laws that have a religious basis. So, it's another word that is mainly thrown around for shock value.
Quote
If every abortion is an act of murder, how do murders committed by Islamic terrorists compare to the number of murders committed by Americans?
It seems to me that you'd be hard pressed to condemn any other society on the planet as brutal, if you believe that Americans are responsible for a million or so murders of babies every year.
It seems to me that you'd be hard pressed to condemn any other society on the planet as brutal, if you believe that Americans are responsible for a million or so murders of babies every year.
Why should I be hard-pressed? I oppose infanticide and terrorism wherever they might be found. Why not? I practice neither, and I support efforts to eliminate both.
Post by: De Selby on April 03, 2007, 09:14:07 PM
Well, I agree with you on opposing both. And on the use of the buzzword theocracy.
But I think there's still an issue of classifying abortion this way. What measures to stop abortion wouldn't be warranted, if it's actually baby murder? Does the largely complacent US population with regards to the issue mean that Americans will turn a blind eye to baby murder, as long as it's with the mother's consent?
Just lots of questions about America there, that's all...I brought it up because I think it's a genuinely interesting comparison, not because I was trying to rag on you personally.
Post by: gunsmith on April 04, 2007, 01:20:54 AM
Once I was called a "breeder" and a "sissy" by a large gay dude...my crime? I was holding hands and walking down the street with a girl
Another time a guy wanted to try and kick me off a bus for wearing a NRA hat, I put my hands in my pocket and pulled out a huge folder and my really large grizzly bear pepper spray and said "ok, kick me off the bus"
But what this writer failed to notice was my very active, very progressive green party friend...who happens to be a very good shot. He loves ipsc! he believes in all sorts of gun control, just not outright bans, my friend is so far left he makes Kerry look like a conservative but even he donated to the NRA because of SF gun control.
You guys do know that the San Francisco Republican Party endorsed the gay marriage Newsome guy for Mayor...don't you?...the green party called Newsome a Nazi!....SF is plain freaking crazy!
Post by: roo_ster on April 04, 2007, 01:23:14 AM
Despite the "A-word" being the moral equivalent to murder in many folks' minds, they are content to work the political process for a solution. Even when the deck is heavily stacked against them, as it has been since 1973, when the Federal judiciary did its level best to take the issue out of the hands of the political branches*.
In a similar vein, the abolitionists did their work, as did the majority of those who fought Jim Crow. Ditto for RKBA activists.
It is the utopian revolutionary who thinks every injustice in society requires violence of action if redress is not immediately forthcoming.
--------
fistful's point about the overuse of the term, "theocracy" is spot-on. Those who use it in contemporary political debate in the USA are viewed by me as akin to those who toss out the race card in willy-nilly. I just assume they have no cogent argument until proven otherwise, as the race/theocracy card is usually the sign of someone who has not thought seriously about the issue or has no sense of proportion.
Post by: Eleven Mike on April 04, 2007, 03:32:13 AM
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 04, 2007, 06:31:15 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 04, 2007, 10:54:07 AM
Quote
But, if you have elected politicians making choices for EVERYONE based on their own INDIVIDUAL ethical code dictated by their INDIVIDUAL religious persuasion, then I think we have a problem and we are right to question to what extent state and church are truly separate.
There is no church involved in that scenario, nor is it a problem.
Post by: MechAg94 on April 04, 2007, 11:36:04 AM
Post by: tyme on April 04, 2007, 12:04:52 PM
Quote
I oppose infanticide and terrorism wherever they might be found. Why not? I practice neither, and I support efforts to eliminate both.
And you will never get anywhere in the argument as long as that's your mindset.Most of us pro-choice folks see abortion (at least until the third trimester) as occurring at a stage where it cannot be called infanticide, murder, or any other term used to denote killing of a human being. In order to convince us, you'll have to present something more than "the soul enters the embryo at conception" and other such metaphysical, non-falsifiable claims.
Post by: Art Eatman on April 04, 2007, 12:21:55 PM
As far as warlike killers, etc., etc., I know of no other country whose leadership has spent as much time, money and effort as ours to minimize collateral damage during official violent military actions. This is where I see the US (and western Europe in general) as being morally superior to the leadership of other countries. I particularly see this judgement as apropos to the middle east and Africa.
Back to the "birthrate" thing: The highest birthrate in the U.S., right now, is among the Catholics. Latins, remember? Guess what? They're Catholic! And some 12 million (Quien sabe?) are illegals. I note that illegals are the darlings of the hard core left and the usual-suspect liberals. For some reason the word "ironic" comes to mind.
Art
Post by: tyme on April 04, 2007, 12:48:22 PM
Quote
Seems to me that abortion is a matter for the individuals involved.
How?Even though I'm vehemently anti-religion and pro-choice, I recognize that if I accept religious doctrine that souls are created or snatched out of the ether by the embryo at conception, then it is murder, and if the states aren't going to do something about it, that's an equal protection violation that the Feds need to step in and rectify.
And that's why I've had it with trying to be nice to people who believe in non-falsifiable religious doctrine that contradicts, or has the potential to contradict, science. Or, in other words, my problem is with instances of religion that make factual statements about the physical world. It's not that I think they're absolutely wrong. It's simply that I have no reason to believe that they're right. If I created some religion that dictates that ants have human souls, and propose that people should be charged with murder for killing ants, I'd be insane. Not because I'd be absolutely wrong -- we don't know much about consciousness, and we have no solid evidence that ants don't, or can't, harbor human souls if souls exist separate from consciousness -- but because history indicates we're more likely than not to make a serious mistake if we turn social policy upside down based on faith.
Post by: drewtam on April 04, 2007, 01:25:02 PM
And that's why I've had it with trying to be nice to people who believe in non-falsifiable religious doctrine that contradicts, or has the potential to contradict, science. Or, in other words, my problem is with instances of religion that make factual statements about the physical world. It's not that I think they're absolutely wrong. It's simply that I have no reason to believe that they're right. If I created some religion that dictates that ants have human souls, and propose that people should be charged with murder for killing ants, I'd be insane. Not because I'd be absolutely wrong -- we don't know much about consciousness, and we have no solid evidence that ants don't, or can't, harbor human souls if souls exist separate from consciousness -- but because history indicates we're more likely than not to make a serious mistake if we turn social policy upside down based on faith.
But your standard of proof is impossible. Science does not dictate what a living human being is. Science says that we are all just complex carbon chains doing a little dance in the wind.
From what I understand of your post you seem to say that "science must define what is inviolate"; this is contradictory in itself. Science has no definition of why human life should be any more inviolate than an ants'. By that standard, murder of 23year old human has no meaning either.
Don't try to tell me that humans own themselves; according to science a human owns themselves as much as my cat owns herself, or a ant owns itself. There is no distinction for the dance of the carbon chains in the wind. Don't tell me its because we are self aware or are very smart; monkeys and dolphins are self aware and very smart too.
The very definition of why human life and hence property rights are inviolate is by some deep down moral judgement. Pick your religion. Hence all of criminal law depends on this moral judgement.
For this reason, John Locke says that the only religion that cannot be tolerated in a government of the people, is an athiest religion.
In conclusion, strictly speaking, abortion is not a religous debate; rather a debate about exactly when human life begins. It is entirely conceivable (pun intended) for Christianity to say "life begins at birth." It is just a fact of history that the bible strongly indicates that life begins sometime in the womb.
It is legitimate (I use the term loosely) for you to pick your religion so that life begins at birth. It also possible for some to pick a religion that says no one but white men have inviolate being. That doesn't mean we lower the standard of law to match the religion you pick.
Drew
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 04, 2007, 02:12:36 PM
Quote
There is no church involved in that scenario, nor is it a problem.
You will have to expand your position here, fistful. If my interpretation of it is correct, then I must disagree.
If you are an elected leader of a particular religious persuasion and that very religion has a stance on an issue that you must address as an elected leader, rather than a private individual, you will have to be a very very special person indeed to refrain from deciding in accordance with the prescribed stance. Generally people fail in that, because the personal consequences of dissidence are far more frightful to them than the public consequences of swerving the public affairs in a potentially wrong direction. You know, going to Hell, or reincarnating as a vegetable and some such...
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 04, 2007, 02:22:22 PM
Quote
Seems to me that abortion is a matter for the individuals involved. Key word, "individuals". Governments don't do abortions. People do.
Yeah, sorry, Art, I think tyme got you there. So long as it is the gov's job to enforce laws and guarantee the rights of the individual, it would not be possible to push it out of the abortion issue exactly because it has not been established that a fetus is not a person. The opposite has not been established either, therein the controversy.
A clearer way to argue your point would be to say that because fetuses are not people, the gov has no standing in the issue. But then fistful will be able to assail your premise (to an impasse).
Post by: tyme on April 04, 2007, 02:35:23 PM
Quote
From what I understand of your post you seem to say that "science must define what is inviolate"; this is contradictory in itself. Science has no definition of why human life should be any more inviolate than an ants'. By that standard, murder of 23year old human has no meaning either.
Scientific results are not inviolate. It seems to me that you want an inviolate system of faith because you don't want to use (fallible) science to make decisions and then discover later that you're wrong. In case you haven't noticed, religion can be wrong, too, and it tends to be wrong in ways that science could have prevented, while science is rarely "wrong" in ways that religion could have prevented. Religion simply ends scientific questioning.
Science doesn't define anything. It explains. It explains that most humans (other than psychopaths) have negative emotional reactions to harm to other humans. It explains that a fertilized egg is fundamentally no different than an unfertilized egg injected with the nucleus of some other ordinary cell. It explains that for weeks, an embryo has no neurons. And, unless you *believe* that at some early point, human brains have some fundamentally different capabilities than brains of other mammals, it doesn't make sense to get all ecstatic about the fact that embryos show brain activity at ~5 weeks or that motor neurons start working at 4-5 months. Every mammal goes through similar stages and I don't see very many of you pro-lifers campaigning for enhanced rights for rats or guinea pigs you're more than willing to let scientists slaughter for the good of human scientific progress.
Deciding what qualifies as a human is perfectly arbitrary, but in order to achieve a balance between the scientific nonsense that a fertilized egg is "special" and the emotional catastrophe of allowing murder of young children, is there a better compromise than the turning point of birth?
My worry is that the religious concept of protected-life-at-conception is abusing our innate emotional reaction against harm to humans and applying it to things that 1) we can barely even see, 2) are not fundamentally distinct from things we don't grant human rights for very practical reasons, and 3) are properly subject to the woman's discretion on whether to carry the embryo/fetus to term, because forcing women to do things has its own serious emotional and sociological consequences.
I'm not even going to approach the discussion of whether a human owns himself. The concept of ownership is totally philosophical, beyond the realm of science, though it may manifest itself sociologically.
Post by: De Selby on April 04, 2007, 02:46:28 PM
The fact is, on this issue, you are forced to make a value judgment no matter what you choose, and value judgments aren't scientific. Doing a biological study of a human embryo does not answer, even remotely, the kind of objection a religious person makes to killing the embryo.
If your problem with being anti-abortion is that it's an unproven judgment about values, you're stuck also concluding that to not say anything about it at all is itself a judgment-namely that it's something not important enough for you to take a stand on with respect to other people.
Religion does not end scientific questioning-it answers a different kind of question that science flatly cannot answer, even in theory.
I would say the real issue with abortion now is how committed the religious are to maintaining a religious society. If they aren't, abortion and other traditional areas once considered within the scope of religion will fall by the wayside. If they are, well...there's lots of work to do.
Post by: tyme on April 04, 2007, 03:44:56 PM
Quote
The claim that a fertilized egg is special isn't scientific, but that doesn't make it nonsense either.
Would you defend from "harm" an unfertilized ovum injected with a different nucleus in the same way you'd defend a traditional embryo?
Quote
The fact is, on this issue, you are forced to make a value judgment no matter what you choose, and value judgments aren't scientific. Doing a biological study of a human embryo does not answer, even remotely, the kind of objection a religious person makes to killing the embryo.
You claim that I'm being unscientific, but I'm not sure what you mean, besides that I'm not in a lab. I referenced some well-accepted scientific results. If you think that my conclusions from them are irrational, please enlighten me. If you think the science is wrong, you're welcome to try to disprove it, but I think you'll be disappointed. Otherwise you're simply trying to espouse fanaticism, which is what I think you mean by "the kind of objection a religious person makes to killing the embryo." It is objection beyond reason.
If it weren't for science, the religious wouldn't even have the concept of an embryo to rally around and get torqued whenever someone "kills" one.
I suspect that the only thing keeping religion from declaring abortion to be "infinite murder" is humankind's discomfort with the concept of infinity. After all, every person is potentially the progenitor of an unbounded number of descendants. Why consider only the instant "person" who is killed by the abortion? The biological reality of infinite descendants does not map well into human consciousness, that's why. The biological reality of an egg developing into a baby is similarly not easy to conceptualize. You just throw up your hands and declare human life as beginning at conception. I at least try to use scientific observations about biology and sociology, and decide how to conceptualize the transition from human cell to human based on that.
Honestly, what kind of evidence would convince you to dispense with the belief that human life begins at conception, if SCNT doesn't? If human and chimpanzee embryos were identical, and somehow changed DNA after blastula depending on the host mother, would that change your opinion? If all mammals had identical DNA and simply developed into one or the other through external hormones, would that convince you? Would you then declare a porcupine embryo a protected human the instant it was implanted in a human mother?
Post by: De Selby on April 04, 2007, 05:06:29 PM
The issue of value judgment is what is not scientific. Judging that there is some crucial moral similarity (or not) between a human embryo and what someone did to a female ovum is a value judgment.
To answer the first question, whether I would or wouldn't depends on my moral evaluation of the difference between the two, not on some biological criteria that show that they are the same in some respects.
Quote
If you think the science is wrong, you're welcome to try to disprove it, but I think you'll be disappointed. Otherwise you're simply trying to espouse fanaticism, which is what I think you mean by "the kind of objection a religious person makes to killing the embryo." It is objection beyond reason.
Again, you are missing the objection here. The point I'm making is that science does not answer a question about what you should or should not defend; "shoulds" and "oughts" and "goods" are not measurable. That includes shoulds, oughts, and goods that aren't religious in nature-it's a fact, moral evaluation is not something that you can put into a lab and measure.
So when you answer the question of what you would defend, or critique what I would or would not defend, you are not using science or providing anything remotely approaching a "scientific answer."
Quote
You just throw up your hands and declare human life as beginning at conception. I at least try to use scientific observations about biology and sociology, and decide how to conceptualize the transition from human cell to human based on that.
Well, one fundamental problem with this theory is that "human life" is a word, and science does not tell you whether or not an evaluative term is properly applied (unless you've already assumed that the word's definition involves certain criteria that are scientific..in which case, you're back to square one, an unscientific assumption.)
"human life" is a label that implies moral judgment. You have to think about what the term means before you can test any particular thing to see if fits the definition. This would be the question we're addressing here-whether it properly applies to a human embryo or not. Your decision that scientific examination of the development of embryos should inform whether or not we declare "human life" at this stage or that is every bit as arbitrary as saying "human life begins at conception."
My belief that a human embryo is a human being is certainly not scientific-but neither is any claim that it isn't a human being. It's a decision you make at the level of defining the word, not at the level "evidence of this or that quality." So all the technical data in the world won't get you anywhere in a discussion with someone who doesn't accept the arbitrary presumption that comparisons to other biological life forms are the only way to define "human life"...and rightly so.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on April 04, 2007, 05:27:38 PM
Thats one of the best examinations of the discussion of religious vs scientific definition of human life I've ever heard.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 04, 2007, 05:37:20 PM
Quote
"human life" is a label that implies moral judgment.
And ridiculous statements like that are why you, tyme, are wasting your time with these guys. Belief allows them to play impossible mental gymnastics and define things as they wish, no matter that we are a biological species with distinct genotype and phenotype.
Fine, let me do some definitions too. That dog I saw today is human too. I saw it in his eyes. It is my right to belief it, and so he is so. In fact, if any of you drunken SOBs out there happens to run him over, I will demand a murder conviction for you. Hell, my car is human too. I gave her a girl's name - Kimberly. If any of you murderous SOBs out there totals her, I will demand a murder conviction for you too. Why? Because "human life" is a subjective judgment, and I HAVE JUDGED. Court adjurned. Weggetreten!
Post by: The Rabbi on April 04, 2007, 05:44:09 PM
Mark Morford is a drooling idiot. He has written the most outrageous things about virtually everything. His positions are 100% the opposite of what most of America feels. He has contempt for Americans and especially those of us in red states. Piss on him.
Post by: De Selby on April 04, 2007, 05:46:00 PM
CAnnoneer,
The fact that you're highlighting is only that most people will agree that certain judgments and terms are way out there, not that there's anything "scientific" about defining the term. I don't see how that addresses the issue of the classification being both unscientific and arbitrary.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 04, 2007, 07:45:32 PM
Quote
I oppose infanticide and terrorism wherever they might be found. Why not? I practice neither, and I support efforts to eliminate both.
And you will never get anywhere in the argument as long as that's your mindset.Most of us pro-choice folks see abortion (at least until the third trimester) as occurring at a stage where it cannot be called infanticide, murder, or any other term used to denote killing of a human being. In order to convince us, you'll have to present something more than "the soul enters the embryo at conception" and other such metaphysical, non-falsifiable claims.
As for your first sentence, I really don't know what you mean by it, but I suspect you may be reading some things into my statement that just aren't there.
Regarding the rest, I have presented fact-based, objective arguments for the humanity of the fertilized egg, over and over again, on this very forum. Whether you agree with my arguments or not, they don't revolve around the Bible. I never - I repeat, never - use the soul or other religious concepts to argue against abortion, unless I am talking to a person who shares my beliefs. And even then, I'd prefer to stick with the non-religious arguments. Instead, I have asked pro-abortion apologists to defend their own metaphysical, non-falsifiable claims that "personhood" begins at some fuzzy point subsequent to fertilization.
Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.
Quote
"human life" is a label that implies moral judgment.
How? Isn't "human" the common name for homo sapiens, a species that we can define according to scientific terms? Surely "life" has a scientific definition. The fertilized egg meets both criteria, of course.
Post by: Antibubba on April 04, 2007, 09:49:43 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 05, 2007, 03:34:37 AM
Post by: Iapetus on April 05, 2007, 08:22:55 AM
Not exactly. Apparently, according to the research, four out of five kids actually stick with the political affiliation of their parents, generation after generation, with religious conservatives far more unlikely than their liberal brethren to allow their kids to develop the capacity for independent thought (given how it's so, you know, dangerous to America). Also, one word: homeschooling. I'm just sayin'.
So...
Conservatives are bringing up their children to be conservatives...
And Liberals are bringing up their children to rebel against their parents' political beliefs...
I think I might be able to see why the Liberals are losing here...