The culture of death convention might seem to be a harsh attribute to attach to the Democrat’s convention but unfortunately it is all too accurate. The very platform that the delegates will sign today is the most ferocious attack against life and family yet. They have become the party of junk science and family experimentation. Al Gore was well known for his advocacy of junk science such as global warming and now they are also firmly embracing the junk science of embryonic stem-cell research. They frame the debate by saying they believe in science, in fact John Kerry said yesterday at Cape Canaveral that America needs a leader who "believes in science." Now I am not aware of any Amish like contingent of our politicians who do not believe in science. Who do not believe that the world is understandable and that we can come to a better understanding of underlying principles. But the debate is framed this way so that anyone who disagrees with embryonic stem-cell research can be cast as being old-fashioned and living in the dark ages. If you don’t be agree with global warming then you are out to destroy the environment. If you are not in favor of embryonic stem-cell research then you want people to suffer and die. The emotional and not scientific argument is used to advance the cause.
The favorite slander of revisionist historians used to attack the Church about science is the Galileo controversy. Never mind that this old chestnut is an inaccurate portrayal of events. The point is that the Democratic party has defined dogmas that no science is allowed to contradict. Instead the debate becomes highly dishonest where the truth of something is obscured. The debate on abortion is contra-science in that they would deny the humanity of the embryo/fetus. They would obscure this by admitting one fact and then hiding under the personhood scam, as if people grow into their personhood or that at the exact point of consciousness or activity the attribute of personhood is magically applied. 4-D ultrasound equipment was not greeted by a praise for new science in the Democrat community. Instead groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL called this machine a "weapon." Laws that would let women know the scientific facts of the risks of abortion in right-to-know laws are not endorsed by the party of "women’s rights" but are vigorously attacked and everything is done to prevent those laws from passing. So passing of scientific information to women is prevented. Increased risk of breast cancer and infertility, big deal – we want to keep abortion at all costs. The debate in the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade did not center around science but around privacy. Yet we heard no calls from the Democratic community decrying this most un-scientific decision. They keep talking about choice yet Democratic state attorney-generals have tried to close down clinics catering to women who want to keep their child. Kerry recently said "Let me tell you very clearly that being pro-choice is not pro-abortion." If you can buy a line form this by a person with a 100 percent voting record in accordance with NARAL and PP who make their money on abortions and not pregnancy centers, I have just the bridge in Brooklyn for you.
Now the Democratic Party is also turning away from democracy since none shall dissent from the abortion dogma. Their 2000 platform stated "The Democratic Party is a party of inclusion. We respect the individual conscience of each American on this difficult issue, and we welcome all our members to participate at every level of our party." This statement is now gone in 2004. Instead the proposed platform now says in part :
We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
"defend the dignity of all Americans" except the pre-born. The make it seem like this is just a Republican issue when in fact they are disenfranchising a large chunk of their own party. I am not sure how they write with a strait face: " Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." This is the same party that fights against allowing the same heath standards in abortion clinics as for other clinics that perform surgery. They mention the ability to pay which means federal money to pay for abortions. In Russian where abortions are funded by the government the abortion rate climbed to 89%. Whatever is federally funded you will have more of. This idea of rare is a sophist’s argument and means absolutely nothing in reality. The only part of the phrase that is accurate is "legal"
Adding insult to injury embryonic stem-cell researched shall now be enshrined in the platform.
"President Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve and Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses – from Alzheimer’s to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson’s. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering"
Now the latest alchemist trick is to turn embryonic stem-cells into golden cures for whatever disease you want to assign them to. The debate again is deeply dishonest. Pursuing stem-cell research under the strictest ethical guidelines? That is utter nonsense. This is like saying we will conduct transplants of hearts from a healthy living person to another ailing person under the strictest ethical guidelines. You can not ethically murder an innocent person to help another. No mention is ever made by them of the true promise of adult stem-cell research. The ability of embryonic stem-cell research to perform these miraculous cure has not been backed up by data. Yet even if the promise was true then ethical methods such as using umbilical cord blood could be used instead. Again scientific facts are not mentioned in this debate, instead they attack Pres. Bush for not allowing Federal money be used to slaughter the innocent in the name of research. Embryos don’t look like us, let’s kill them. Since they don’t look like us they are not human. Sound familiar? Meet the new boss,
Same as the old boss. Ah but in this case we are fooled again and another group of people are dehumanized so that another group may benefit.
So in the abortion debate children are allowed to be murdered to supposedly make the life of the mother easier. That a difficult situation justifies a difficult solution. We can experiment on embryos and murder them at will to ease the life of someone suffering from disease. These arguments are framed as the compassionate choice. We can and should feel sorrow at the plight of Christopher Reeves and others, but the answer is prayer and truly ethical medical research. John Kerry has been quoting the Bible lately and I wish he would get to the "never tire of doing good" part. Right now the end justifies the means if it is politically expedient according to focus groups.
Then we come to the attack on the family under the veil of states rights.
We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush’s divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart.
I have a hard time believing a party that rejoices when the Supreme Court advances their agenda is pro-state rights. Where is their outcry that states were not allowed to accept/reject abortion? States accept/reject sodomy? I am curious to see how much same-sex marriage will be talked about at the convention. Especially it being in Boston where the the state court imposed same-sex marriage by fiat. But I guess this is still a hot-button issue even in Democratic flanks and so they are hiding under state-rights instead of outright endorsement. You would think that gay advocacy groups would be outraged at the relatively mild support of same-sex marriage in the platform. But they know, wink-wink, that this was done for political reasons and the the Democratic Party fully supports same-sex marriage especially if it came about by Supreme Court edict. "Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart." Oh and then why are you on the wrong side of the divisive abortion issue?
Being an ex-Democrat I would like nothing better then to see the Democrat Party regain it moral vision. As a Catholic I vote to advance the Culture of Life and to promote the dignity of all human beings. It would be nice to be able to choose between candidates on more mundane issues. The GOP is flawed in it’s execution of it’s pro-life platform, but Democrats who follow some parts of their platform are cooperating with evil. Jesus told us to pray for our enemies and I strive never to dehumanize those who advance policies which I greatly disagree with. So if you have managed to get to the end of this bloated post please pray for those who, as of yet ,do not see the dignity of all human life. And pray for those with who do that they shall persevere with charity in the fight for the unborn whether in the womb or petri dish.
You have me on embryonic stem cell research, but you’ve lost me on global warming (or cooling). The facts are undeniable that the earth’s climate shifts substantially from time to time. The question is: how much do human beings affect this? We could just happen to be pumping the air full of extras at a time when the earth would be warming anyway. Or not.
No serious scientist would deny the earth is getting warmer now. No serious scientist would deny that human beings are altering the atmosphere in measurable ways. No serious person would deny that big business (especially big oil) is above self-deception, or even promoting lies to ensure the gravy train of profit. They engineered a war or two over it, why not a few press releases on why the earth isn’t getting warmer?
Keep piling on the science, if you wish, but when you swing and miss badly, it weakens your case for the good idea you actually have.
The junk science of global warming is that humans have measurably caused it. The fact that the sun is currently in a warming trend as it cycles through it’s century long variations has nothing to do with hairspray or SUVs. Data from satellites and weather ballons have totally conflicted with the data reported on the ground. The professor who first sold Al Gore on global warming has recanted his position as being false.
While I totally believe in being a good steward of the Earth that God has given us. I don’t believe in the earth first, humans seconds as the people who would rather have people die of malaria then to spray for mosquitos.
Yes serious scientist would deny what you say. There are more cars now than ever before, yet pollution is being reduced in most major cities. But anyone that raves about big oil and wars starting for oil while driving their cars are just talking point fanatics.
There is also a gravy train for liberal scientists to promote global warming. Nobody is getting a grant to debunk it. I remember seeing one set of graphs using two computer models that did not agree with each other. For the final report they changed the color gradient of the graphs to make them look like they support each other. Science or propaganda for grant money?
Bjorn Lomborg�s book The Skeptical Environmentalist points much of this out. He is by no means a conservative but his book sheds light on the mistatements and lies of the environmentalist.
Jesus told us to pray for our enemies and I strive never to dehumanize those who advance policies which I greatly disagree with.
Ironically Jeff, I posted a blog entry today on the issue of dehumanization and appropriate usages of this approach viz. the war on terror. See the most recent audioblog addition to Rerum Novarum for details if interested.
“The fact that the sun is currently in a warming trend as it cycles through it’s century long variations has nothing to do with hairspray or SUVs.”
The warming trend of the sun takes place on the scale of hundreds of millions of years. There is no “trend” in the sense that the sun is notably warmer today than a few hundred years ago. One can posit a “cyclic” sun — scientists note the curious lack of sunspots coinciding with the end of the Little Ice Age — but the data on that is sketchy enough to make us wonder: causation or coincidence. Even the solar EM activity of last year did not affect the overall energy output of the sun by more than a few tenths of a percentage.
Most significant for earth’s climate are ocean currents. These are noted, but not really well understood, except that we know a shift in the Gulf Stream would likely alter the First World’s climate significantly more than a solar flare or even solar energy output a hundred million years hence.
“Data from satellites and weather ballons have totally conflicted with the data reported on the ground.”
Serious scientists acknowledge climate factors push both ways — that’s what makes for an equilibrium. What you term a “conflict” is merely part of a set of balances keyed into the planet’s climate. The issue of human-sponsored global change is not that we do it all by ourselves, but that we alter an otherwise balanced system. The question is not if we do it, but how much we do.
“I don’t believe in the earth first, humans seconds …”
Good. I don’t believe in oil companies first, humans second either. So we’re in balance on the political plane.
“There is also a gravy train for liberal scientists to promote global warming.”
Not like the money to be had in Big Oil. People don’t go to war over research grants. But they will over oil production and related heavy industries.
“Bjorn Lomborg�s book The Skeptical Environmentalist points much of this out. He is by no means a conservative but his book sheds light on the mistatements and lies of the environmentalist.”
Maybe. Good science is always skeptical. And science is not immune from its own brand of conservativism. Being college-trained in the sciences, I’ve seen it first-hand. The likely truth is somewhere in between the extremes you propose.
Humans are able to alter earth’s climate more than the doubters think. The earth itself is tough enough to withstand a degree of “tampering,” but nobody knows for sure when the limit will be reached. We might already be past it, or it might be that reduced auto emissions will delay it or steer us back. Given the short-term view of many American businesses, it is conceivable that they would put money into playing up the questions in the current research, and opt for business as usual. My sense is that this approach is unwise.
The bottom line is that neither side can make its case with absolute 100% thoroughness, but the stakes are too high to ignore the human factor. It could be a coincidence that the industrial revolution and many warming trends are happening at the same time. Or not. Also, I wouldn’t consider Gore as either champion or target on this issue. You might make me think he invented global warming.
Hi guys. Seize opportunity by the beard, for it is bald behind. Help me! Need information about: Wall clock. I found only this – synthroid tremor. Therefore synthroid or other brands of levothyroxine sodium will provide the more than likely synthroid might be found just as beneficial as armour if. Was some medication he has instituted. With respect :o, Hercules from Timor.