cb.blog

Category: Politics

Pol·i·tics: the art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. Posts in this category pertain to local and national politics.

  • Christians Against Human Cloning Rally

    Last night, I attended the Christians Against Human Cloning Rally, held at Life Christian Church and sponsored by Vision America/Missourians for Truth. Speakers included Shao-Chun Chang (professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis), Charles Drury (Hotel Developer), Archbishop Raymond Burke, Rich Bott (executive vice president, Bott Radio Network), Rick Scarborough (President, Vision America), Phyllis Schlafly (Founder and President, Eagle Forum), and Alan Keyes.

    Some notable quotes:

    “It is wrong to create human life for the purpose of destroying that life.”

    — Archbishop Raymond Burke

    “The most fundamental premise of our nation is not that we have rights, but that our rights come from God.”

    — Dr. Alan Keyes

    (Pictures will be available soon.)

    UPDATE: See the Flickr photoset for the rally.

    CAHC Rally 001

    Christians Against Human Cloning Rally, Life Christian Church, Saint Louis, 28 August 2006
    Photo © Chip Bennett, all rights reserved.

    The Post-Dispatch covered the rally. Below are some excerpts from the article.

    (St. Loius Archbiship Raymond) Burke, head of the St. Louis Roman Catholic archdiocese, joined other regional and national religious conservatives – from Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly to commentator Alan Keyes – who addressed hundreds who packed the sanctuary at the Life Christian Church, 13001 Gravois Road in south St. Louis County.

    “Hundreds“? My estimation was more like 2,000. I was in the balcony, and couldn’t see the entire floor seating area. The Cape Girardeau rally had 300, and gauging by the photo, we had as many in the balcony seating, alone.

    (I just called the church to inquire about estimated attendance. Though I didn’t get an actual number, I was informed that the rally was believed to be essentially a “full house”, and the church sanctuary/auditorium holds between 3,000 and 4,000 people. I know the balcony wasn’t entirely full, but the floor seating was.)

    Back to the article:

    In a telephone interview, (chairman of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures Donn) Rubin contended that it was the opponents who were spreading untruths. Otherwise, he said, the Cures Coalition wouldn’t have support from more than 100 groups, including research centers, health care groups and patient groups.

    We’ll see the most fundamental of your untruths, a couple paragraphs below. And it’s about time I parsed your “factsheet” as well, since every single point listed is a mistruth at best, or a bald-faced lie at worst.

    Critics, said Rubin, are “inventing wild claims to distract the public from what we’re really voting on – the right of Missourians to obtain the same medical treatments available in other states.”

    The “medical treatments” canard is nothing but a “wild [claim] to distract the public from what we’re really voting on.” Missouri’s access to medical treatments available in other states has never been in question, and likely will never be in question. In the far-off (and, in all reality, unlikely) event that a human treatment derived from embryonic stem cells ever becomes available, the location of the research into that treatment will not determine the location of the application of such a treatment. The availability of such a treatment will depend only upon the availability of access to the stem cell line from which such treatment was developed.

    At the rally, opponents emphasized that much of the debate centers on a procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, or therapeutic cloning.

    Under that procedure, the nucleus of an unfertilized human egg is replaced with the nucleus of another human cell. Opponents say it is a form of human cloning and cite the use of the procedure to clone Dolly the sheep. The Lifesaving Cures Coalition says the procedure is not cloning and cites the proposed amendment’s specific ban against implanting such an egg in a womb.

    And here it is: the number one, most fundamental, outright, bald-faced lie of the Coalition. By definition Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is cloning; cloning is SCNT. The two terms are interchangeable.

    In genetics, somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) is a technique for cloning.

    …

    This technique is currently the basis for cloning animals, such as the famous Dolly the sheep, and could theoretically be used to clone humans. Scientists at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute are currently researching a technique to use somatic cell nuclear transfer to produce embryonic stem cells.

    For human cells, no other method exists as a viable means of cloning.

    Even your own supporters recognize and admit this truth. From your own website:

    Let us freely admit that the procedure used to produce human stem cells for research is cloning, but not in any way part of a process for creating human babies. The distinction should be clear.

    The distinction is clear, but it is also irrelevant. Your Coalition is promoting Amendment 2, specifically stating that the amendment “bans human cloning” – yet, you never reveal that the amendment uses a conjured definition of “cloning” not recognized anywhere else, nor do you point out that the amendment actually prohibits the banning of human cloning – that is, cloning according to the proper usage of the term.

    So, which side is it, again, using distractions and spreading untruths?

    Back to the article:

    Scarborough said the number of Missouri rallies would depend on how much money can be raised to pay for them. So far, each rally has cost close to $20,000. That includes Keyes’ speaking fee of $2,500.

    The Lifesaving Cures’ leaders point to the payments as evidence that Keyes and Scarborough may have financial motives. Scarborough said he was offended by such talk, and added that Keyes’ payment was a fraction of his usual speaking fee.

    Let’s compare rallies, shall we?

    How much do you want to wager that the Coalition Rally held at the Capitol Plaza Hotel in Jefferson City, with its Hollywood glitz, busloads of “hundreds” (er, make that, about 150) attendees from across the state, red-carpet treatment of speakers, and applause cues cost more than the Christians Against Human Cloning rallies? To wit (emphasis added):

    From their state-of-the-art audio/visual equipment to the busloads of backers brought to town from across the state, it was clear supporters of an effort to amend Missouri’s constitution to protect embryonic stem cell research spared no expense at a Monday morning campaign kickoff rally.

    With an audience of nearly 150 proponents at the Capitol Plaza Hotel prompted to applaud on cue and a podium of speakers from the political to the poignant, the rally in favor of the Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative had the look and feel of a television talk show.

    Are you going to imply, with a straight face, that all of the Coalition’s speakers are speaking without compensation? Further, what of the over ten million dollars in Coalition support from the Stowers Institute? Would you actually lead to believe that this investment is made without an expectation of a return? Follow the money, indeed!

    See also: LifeNews coverage.

  • Sunday School Scandal in Watertown

    In The Agora has a post about First Baptist Church in Watertown, NY, dismissing Mary Lambert from her Sunday School teaching position, which she had held for 54 years, citing I Timothy 2:12 (NIV):

    I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

    The pastor, Timothy LaBouf, issued this statement on the church’s web site.

    The church also has a blog, but it appears to be only for posting weekly sermons.

    There appears to be some history, both with church members taking church matters public, and also specifically with Ms. Lambert, according to this statement from the Diaconate Board. The part that puts the church board and the pastor in a tenuous position is that the dismissal letter referenced only the Scriptural rationale for Lambert’s dismissal, yet the board’s statement indicated that the dismissal had only a small part to do with that rationale:

    In the specific case of Ms. Lambert the Board’s decision to remove her from a teaching position was multifaceted and the scriptural rules concerning women teaching men in a church setting was only a small aspect of that decision. Christian courtesy motivates us to refrain from making any public accusations against her.

    According to the pastor’s statement:

    We had originally intended to include the various multifaceted reasons for the dismissal in our corresponds however after legal review it was recommended that we refrain from including issues that could be construed as slander and stick with “spiritual issues” that govern a church, which the courts have historically stayed out of. With threats of lawsuits in the past we wanted to try hard to not go down that road again.

    I’m no lawyer, but it would seem to me that this course of action would only invite more legal scrutiny…

    Perhaps, before making such a drastic decision, rationalized based upon a single Scriptural reference, the church should remember this Scripture:

    Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

    II Corinthians 13:1 (NIV) (See also: Deuteronomy 19:15)

    More importantly, if the church wanted to dismiss Lambert for other reasons, they should do so, and state them, rather than hiding behind a “Scriptural rationalization” out of fear of legal ramifications.

  • Think For Oneself, Come To The Right Conclusion

    At least, that’s what happened for Jason Kotecki of the Escape Reality blog:

    A lot of really good scientific information is out there, if you look for it. And yet I’m still left scratching my head. If adult cells have a proven track record for making people better, why all the hullabaloo about the embryonic incarnations? Why the big push for embryonic stem cell research when it clearly involves tinkering with life and has nowhere near the track record of the other types of stem cells anyway? Why all this talk about being “for” or “against” stem cell research? In my estimation, we should all be for it. But why aren’t the distinctions between the types of stem cells spelled out in the media? Is it because the media can’t resist the juiciness of pitting two sides against each other? Is it because an accurate distinction between the different types doesn’t fit nicely into a 30-second sound byte? And why do politians always feel the need to jump in and muddy the waters?

    My advice, Jason: follow the money.

  • Ayn Rand Institute Hypocrisy

    Mary Meets Dolly parses a despicable attempt at rationalization of the inhumanity of human embryos by David Holcberg and Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute.

    The authors use several tactics. Here is the first:

    But embryos used in embryonic stem cell research are manifestly not human beings–not in any rational sense of the term. These embryos are smaller than a grain of sand, and consist of at most a few hundred undifferentiated cells. They have no body or body parts. They do not see, hear, feel, or think. While they have the potential to become human beings–if implanted in a woman’s uterus and brought to term–they are nowhere near actual human beings.

    Unfortunately for them, human embryos are, by unbiased definition, human beings. Genetically, they are fully human. They are not “potential” humans. The self-direct their growth and development, meaning the human embryo manifestly exhibits initiative toward that end. Just because some activist SCOTUS judges arbitrarily conferred “personhood” on human beings only upon the point of birth does not change the scientific evidence, knowledge, and general belief that life exists intrinsically at the moment of conception.

    The second tactic is as follows:

    The “pro-lifers” accept on faith the belief that rights are a divine creation: a gift from an unknowable supernatural being bestowed on embryos at conception (which many extend to embryos “conceived” in a beaker). The most prominent example of this view is the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, which declares to its followers that an embryo “is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized.”

    But rights are not some supernatural construct, mystically granted by the will of “God.” They are this-worldly principles of proper political interaction rooted in man’s rational nature. Rights recognize the fact that men can only live successfully and happily among one another if they are free from the initiation of force against them. Rights exist to protect and further human life. Rights enable individual men to think, act, produce and trade, live and love in freedom. The principle of rights is utterly inapplicable to tiny, pre-human clusters of cells that are incapable of such actions.

    I guess, by this logic, every one of our Founding Fathers was a “pro-lifer”. May I remind of the following:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

    The endowment of rights is not a function of nor dependent upon the capacity of the person to take advantage of those rights; rather, the intrinsic worth of the person is recognized by the unconditional endowment of those rights. The authors’ same logic applies to justification for euthanasia of the elderly, the incapacitated, the mentally retarded, or anyone else not deemed inherently “worthy” of such rights as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the height of arrogance that these authors would deign to set themselves up as arbiters of the inherent worth of any person, no matter at what stage in that person’s development.

    The logical progression of this line of rationalization leads to the following harrowing statement:

    In fact, to attribute rights to embryos is to call for the violation of actual rights. Since the purpose of rights is to enable individuals to secure their well-being, a crucial right, inherent in the right to liberty and property, is the right to do scientific research in pursuit of new medical treatments. To deprive scientists of the freedom to use clusters of cells to do such research is to violate their rights–as well as the rights of all who would contribute to, invest in, or benefit from this research.

    The last person to try such reasoning did so in order to implement said scientific research on another group of humans deemed unworthy of the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The end result: the death of millions of Jews in the Holocaust.

    Having fully lost all grasp of reality, the authors resort to what is now the commonplace argument for ESC research:

    And to the extent that rights are violated in this way, we can expect deadly results. The political pressure against embryonic stem cell research is already discouraging many scientists and businessmen from investing their time and resources in its pursuit. If this research can lead, as scientists believe, to the ability to create new tissues and organs to replace damaged ones, any obstacles placed in its path will unnecessarily delay the discovery of new cures and treatments for diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and osteoporosis. Every day that this potentially life-saving research is delayed is another day that will go by before new treatments become available to ease the suffering and save the lives of countless individuals. And if the “pro-lifers” ever achieve the ban they seek on embryonic stem cell research, millions upon millions of human beings, living or yet to be born, might be deprived of healthier, happier, and longer lives.

    Yet these hypocrites ignore new treatments for such conditions being developed and used every day, when such treatments are derived from adult stem cell research. They gloss over the glaring failure thus far of ESC research to yield even a single viable treatment. They facilitate the propogation of false hope for those suffering from diseases that likely no stem-cell (adult or embryonic) derived treatments will ever help, such as Alzheimer’s.

    The authors leave us with this conclusion:

    The enemies of embryonic stem cell research know this, but are unmoved. They are brazenly willing to force countless human beings to suffer and die for lack of treatments, so that clusters of cells remain untouched.

    To call such a stance “pro-life” is beyond absurd. Their allegiance is not to human life or to human rights, but to their anti-life dogma.

    If these enemies of human life wish to deprive themselves of the benefits of stem cell research, they should be free to do so and die faithful to the last. But any attempt to impose their religious dogma on the rest of the population is both evil and unconstitutional. In the name of the actual sanctity of human life and the inviolability of rights, embryonic stem cell research must be allowed to proceed unimpeded. Our lives may depend on it.

    To claim that an embryo is not a human being is beyond absurd. The proponents of embryonic stem cell research know this, but are unmoved. They are brazenly willing to force their dogmatic, culture-of-death views on the rest of the American people, who continue to demonstrate their disdain for human cloning for any reason, and their disapproval of the destruction of human embryos for research purposes. So, let’s recap:

    Pro-Life

    • Recognizes intrinsic value of life at every age and stage of deveopment
    • Supports the entirely ethically uncontroversial, already proven, and immensely promising adult stem cell research
    • Opposes embryonic stem cell research because the process destroys human embryos, recognized as intrinsically valuable human life

    Culture of Death

    • Denies the inherent worth of life based on developmental stage, mental capacity, age, ability to contribute to society, or any other socially or politically expedient reason
    • Ignores the many advances in adult stem cell research, and the tens of thousands of people whose lives have been improved or even saved by such research
    • Rationalizes an untenable position by attempting to redefine terms and change boundaries, and intentionally give false hope by knowingly making unrealistic claims

    Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave.

  • Alzheimer’s and Stem Cells: The Reality

    Dennis York lays out the reality concerning Alzheimer’s and potential stem-cell related treatments.

  • Missile Strike Kills Zarqawi in Iraq

    One less terrorist mastermind:

    Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the mastermind behind hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings whose leadership of the insurgent group al- Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in the country, was killed Wednesday evening by an air strike near Baqubah, north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday.

    …

    Zarqawi, a Sunni, was killed along with seven aides, officials said.

    …

    Zarqawi was killed in a rural house in the village of Hib Hib, about 55 miles northwest of Baqhdad, Maliki said.

    “Tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders from his network led forces to al-Zarqawi and some of his associates who were conducting a meeting . . . when the air strike was launched,” [U.S. General George W.] Casey said.

    He said Zarqawi’s identify was confirmed by “fingerprint verification, facial recognition and known scars.”

    Via RedState.com.

    More here, here, here, here, here, here, and of course, Ask The Cats.

  • I Wonder What the Coalition Has to Say About Her Story?

    From the State Register-Journal in Springfield, IL, comes the story of this courageous young woman who will be speaking in favor of Adult Stem Cell (ASC) research, and in opposition to Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research:

    Jacki said she wants to help other patients benefit from adult stem cells.

    She said she is going to Washington to draw attention to the promise of treatments involving these cells, which already are used in the United States in bone marrow and umbilical cord-blood transplants.

    She said she opposes the use of embryonic stem cells because embryos must be destroyed for those cells to be used.

    “It is like an abortion,” she said. “I don’t think you need to kill a life to help somebody else whose already living. But adult stem-cell research I’m for, because it’s not hurting anybody or affecting anybody. It’s just using your own body to help yourself.”

    This girl’s story is just amazing, and incredibly inspirational:

    A former standout volleyball player, she spends at least an hour a day at her church, First Baptist in Waverly, where she practices walking with her braces.

    When Jacki went through the surgery, she thought she would be walking without braces by now – an outcome that none of Lima’s 80 patients has achieved since he began doing it in 2002. Now she would settle for more feeling in her trunk and legs.

    The depression she said she sometimes feels doesn’t discourage her for long, she said. But she has been disappointed lately by not being able to find a job in retail or at an office.

    She said she has put her college plans on hold and has applied for jobs at many locations in Springfield and previously worked at an ice-cream shop in Waverly. She refuses to apply for federal disability payments.

    “I’m motivated, and I do my best in everything I can, and I’m very independent,” said Jacki, who drives and graduated fourth in her senior class of 21 at Waverly High School.

    Of course, since her procedure involved adult, rather than embryonic, stem cells, the MSM will largely ignore it – and that is tragic, not just with respect to the stem cell issue, but also because of the character and determination of this young woman as she fights for her own betterment, and advocates for the benefit of others.

  • Comparing Stem Cell Poll Questions

    Anne Leonard of the Stem Cell Research Blog compares stem cell poll questions, and their divergent results.

    The first poll question, from the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), which polled 72% strongly/somewhat in favor:

    Embryonic stem cells are special cells which can develop into every type of cell in the human body. The stem cells are extracted from embryonic cells produced in fertility clinics and then frozen days after fertilization. If a couple decides the fertilized eggs are no longer needed, they can choose to donate the embryos for research or the clinic will throw the embryos away. Scientists have had success in initial research with embryonic stem cells and believe that they can be developed into cures for diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s, heart disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries. Having heard this description, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose medical research that uses stem cells from human embryos?

    The second poll question, from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which polled 48% opposed:

    Stem cells are the basic cells from which all of a person’s tissues and organs develop. Congress is considering the question of federal funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells. Do you support or oppose using your federal tax dollars for such experiments?

    She then, after comparing the two poll questions, comes to the following conclusion:

    I find the CAMR question better designed (despite its use of “success”) and more objective than the Bishops’ question, which has a lot of ambiguity in it. Maybe I am reading with my own biases and knowledge—but I think providing information about an issue yields a better question than vague and unspecific language.

    Huh? The Bishops’ question is more “vague” and has more “ambiguity” than the CAMR question? Let’s compare, shally we?

    Ambiguous:

    The stem cells are extracted from embryonic cells produced in fertility clinics and then frozen days after fertilization.

    Stem cells are not extracted from “embryonic cells”, they are extracted from embryos (destroying them in the process).

    Not Ambiguous:

    The live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells.

    Ambiguous:

    Scientists have had success in initial research with embryonic stem cells and believe that they can be developed into cures for diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s, heart disease, juvenile diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.

    Embryonic stem cell (ESC) research has yielded no success whatsoever in treating any human injury, illness, or condition.

    Not Ambiguous:

    Congress is considering the question of federal funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos.

    So, exactly, which poll question is more vague and ambiguous?

    More interestingly, and which the post doesn’t even address, is this follow-up question in the Bishops’ poll, which polled 81% against:

    Should scientists be allowed to use human cloning to create a supply of human embryos to be destroyed in medical research?

    This question is actually better in comparison to the CAMR question, since the two are more comparable. The entire IVF embryo question is really a red herring, since ESR research proponents prefer “fresh” embryos, and consider frozen embryos to be inferior. Thus, ESR research will come primarily from SCNT-cloned embryos, against which this poll question shows strong opposition.

  • Never Give Up, Indeed

    Apparently, Lene Johansen doesn’t think that those who support banning human cloning should keep challenging the Stem Cell Initiative.

    No, we will never give up. It has something to do with the Initiative, through an intentionally deceptive attempt to re-define “cloning”, claiming that the Initiative bans human cloning, while in reality it constitutionally prohibits the legislature from banning human cloning.

    So, no; we won’t give up, until every Missourian knows the truth. Missourians have the right to make informed decisions about this issue.

  • Say What?

    Among other things in this article on the one-year anniversary of Massachussetts’ pro-embryonic stem cell (ESC) research legislation, I found this little gem [emphasis added]:

    After years of honing his skills in Massachusetts, the 34-year-old stem cell researcher received an offer from a privately endowed research center in Kansas City.

    There was only one hitch. In Missouri, Cowan said, he feared his type of research could land him behind bars. In contrast, he felt Massachusetts had put out a welcome mat.

    Talk about sensationalism! “Land him in jail”? Really? Considering that none of the research being conducted in Massachussetts is illegal in Missouri, that fear is rather spurious.

    Oh, and a side note: I would harbor a guess that the “privately endowed research center in Kansas City” mentioned in the article is none other than the Stowers Institute, founded by the same Jim and Virginia Stowers who are bank-rolling the Missouri Stem Cell Initiative.

    The article has more of the usual mis-information. After generally getting the facts straight for most of the article, we come to the following critical failure:

    At the heart of the stem cell debate is a procedure known both as somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning.

    The basic science involves taking an egg from a woman, removing the 23 chromosomes that would normally match up with 23 chromosomes from a sperm, and replacing them with a full 46 chromosome nucleus from any cell of an adult, essentially creating a single cell clone.

    The egg is then induced to begin reproducing until there is a ball of a few hundred stem cells that have the ability to transform themselves into any type of cell in the body. The goal is to use those cells to create cures or treatments for disease.

    Good information, up to “single cell clone” – but then the article gets it wrong. That “single cell clone” is no longer an egg, but a zygoe: a single-cell embryo. The embryo proceeds through mitosis (cell division) and into the various stages of embryonic development. At the stage in question – the blastocyst stage – the embryo is comprised of inner and outer cell masses. The outer cell mass will later become the placenta, and the inner mass (which contains the stem cells) progresses into the fetal stages of human development.

    In order to use those stem cells, the embryo must be destroyed. A “ball of cells” is not removed from the developing embryo; a developing human being is killed.

    The article’s conclusion falls under the category of “unintentional irony” [emphasis added]:

    Despite his enthusiasm, Zon tries to temper public expectations about the research.

    He said the short term goal — over the next five years or so — is to gain a greater understanding of human development and use tissue created through human embryonic stem cell research to experiment with potential treatments for diseases.

    The longer term goal — over the next 10 years — is to create new cells to actually replace defective parts.

    “We are just at the beginning,” he said.

    The only thing realistic here is the last sentence. Every indication is that any real progress with ESC research is, at a minimum, decades away. How giving the impression that meaningful results are 5-10 years away constitutes “tempering public opinion”, I can’t fathom.