Archive for May 25th, 2005

Stem Cell Madness

Tell ya what: When Dobson and his minions can line up adoptive parents for every single unwanted embryo in America, whether in a fertility clinic or a womb, then, maybe, we can talk about banning stem cell research and some abortions. However, the sad, harsh fact remains that there are always going to be more embryos than there are people who want them, and I see nothing wrong with putting the ones in fertility clinics to good use – if the Dobgoblins want to “rescue” some of them via adoption, good for them, but that doesn’t magically invalidate either the enormous research value or the unwantedness of the un-adopted embryos.

And as I think about it some more, please, let them start with the fertility clinic embryos, which are not inside a woman’s body and therefore not disrupting anyone’s life or future. Get caught up on those, then work their way through the women who don’t mind carrying a baby to term but balk at taking care of it for whatever reason (like, say, because those very same anti-abortion crusaders have no interest in any kind of government assistance or support to indigent mothers). Once they’ve got those unwanted embryos taken care of, then they can work on pioneering non-fatal embryo/fetus extraction techniques to replace abortions for women who don’t want to be pregnant (age, health, rape/incest, etc.). No-one has to keep a baby or a pregnancy they don’t want, no unborn babies die – everybody wins!

So what are y’all pro-lifers waiting for? You should be getting right on that! What’s that? You say you don’t want to go through another pregnancy? You can’t afford to take care of another baby? How interesting…

Update: With a nod to Otter, the fundies should worry about adopting unwanted born children before they start freaking out over the unborn ones.

9 comments May 25th, 2005 at 06:32pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Choice,Politics,Religion,Science,Wankers

Advising & Consenting Adults

As I’m reading a bit about Senators Byrd and Warner making the case that the “advice” in “advice and consent” means, y’know, advice, I find myself wondering once again how Republicans can seriously claim that “advice” means a straight up-or-down vote; that’s an awfully peculiar definition of “advice,” and it’s all the more peculiar when you consider that it’s followed closely by “consent.”

If a simple vote constitutes “advice,” then what on earth would “consent” be, and does it require lubricant?

IMHO, everyone would be a lot better off if presidents – of both parties – began taking the “advice” part a little more seriously. Deeply-felt political convictions are a great thing to have in a president or congresscritter, but they’re just about the last thing I want to see in a judge. We would be better served by a system that packs the judiciary with mushy moderates than one that depends on a more-or-less even balance between liberal and conservative extremists to keep the rest of the government in check, which is where I believe a post-nuclear world (whether de facto or de jure) takes us.

The only problem with the “advice” approach is that the first side to employ it would feel they were unilaterally disarming by countering reliable extremists with unpredictable moderates who could swing either way. Of course, since the Republicans have majorities on almost every court, they should have the least to lose by going first, and think what a fine, courageous, non-activist example they would be setting!

Now, where the hell is that bridge I bought? I didn’t even get a UPS tracking number or anything…

1 comment May 25th, 2005 at 04:44pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Judiciary,Politics,Republicans

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




May 2005
« Apr   Jun »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *