Posted on 09/10/2012 2:29:35 PM PDT by neverdem
A narrative has developed over the past several years that the Republican Party is anti-science. Recently, thanks to the ignorant remarks about rape made by Rep. Todd Akin, the Democrats have seized the opportunity to remind us that they are the true champions of science in America. But is it really true?
No. As we thoroughly detail in our new book, "Science Left Behind," Democrats are willing to throw science under the bus for any number of pet ideological causes – including anything from genetic modification to vaccines.
Consider California’s Proposition 37, which would require genetically modified food to carry a warning label. The American Medical Association is opposed because “there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods.” Every major scientific and regulatory agency -- including the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, EPA, FDA, and USDA -- recognizes the importance of genetic modification.
Yet, the California Democratic Party has officially endorsed Proposition 37 -- in direct opposition to the recommendation of America’s finest doctors and in contradiction to the scientific consensus. The Republicans endorsed the pro-science position. Did this fact make the news? No.
Digging deeper into the issue, one finds that California Democrats have de facto allied themselves with some of the biggest anti-science quacks in America. Among Prop 37’s most fervent supporters are peddlers of alternative medicine, anti-vaccine groups, and even one crank who claims that genetically modified food causes autism.
This anti-science mentality is not a recent development. The Democratic Party has long made common cause with prominent people who thought vaccines caused autism, two in particular who stand out among the rest.
The first person is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who published an influential article in Rolling Stone and the progressive website Salon back in 2005 tying vaccines to...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Yes, conception is the first stage of development of a new human person.
And yes, conception is very very special - but nothing particularly special happens to the DNA.
DNA is just a recipe for how to make useful molecular machines and when and where to make them so that a human being forms and begins to grow.
My little daughter has already mixed up the chromosomes she got from me with the ones she got from my beloved wife to make the unique and new DNA sequence she will contribute to any grandchild she ever gives me. THAT was when the new DNA sequence was formed - several decades before she will ever conceive a child.
My second point is that nothing special HAS TO happen to the DNA at conception in order for conception to be the first stage of development of a new human life; and to be very very special.
I pray your wife has a quick and smooth delivery.
I remember sterilizing every thing when my first came home!
By the time my poor last child came along I was just wiping her binky off on my pants. LOL!
lol. thanks!
Given that eggs, both fertilized and unfertilized can be passed out of a woman’s body without producing life what are the circumstances that lead to life? Only when that fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall whereby those nutrients and hormones can be supplied does life begin. This occurs about 7 days after conception. When would God send a spirit to this little baby - at conception when it cannot sustain life or at this point when life can be sustained?
The argument that “life begins at conception” is unscientific. It also fails to meet the basic understanding of God and the nature of this world. If one moves away from “conception” and toward implantation you have a sustainable argument.
From a strictly scientific point of view, life is a property which is contained within both the sperm and the egg. If neither of them possess that property, fertilization will not occur. The fertilized ovum has the property of being alive, also. By the time implantation occurs, if that ovum is so lucky, the blastocyst already contains several cells. There is never a point during the process of oogenesis, spermatogenesis, fertilization, implantation, or pregnancy at which life is not present. If, at any time, the property of being alive disappears, it will not return.
I do not try to distinguish "when life can be sustained" because there is no defining point when that occurs. Indeed, it is a matter of opinion as to when life may be considered to be sustainable. Seriously, most of us depend on others to live.
I understand that, but a human being is the union of a soul and a body. Not just a body. At what point does “life” gain a soul? Does the sperm have a soul? The egg?
At some point it becomes a human being. It isn’t a human being when it is just an egg or just a sperm. It doesn’t make sense to believe that every fertilized egg is a human soul.
All belief is a matter of opinion. Even science gets draped in opinion. We have to make decisions based on the best available evidence. Viability doesn’t begin at conception, but at implantation. Outside the womb using current technology it begins at about 22 weeks.
If all Americans could agree on those two terms it would end decades worth of vitriolic debate about innocent human life. If we allowed contraception that prevented implantation and limited abortion to viability we’d be much, much closer to the goal than we are now. You can get consensus around my definitions. The life begins at conception argument is nonsense on its face if you’re discussing human life and not simply “life”.
I do not attempt to place when a soul might be present or not, because that is too similar to many of the pro-abortion arguments. I have seen many intellectual abortion advocates argue that because an unborn baby can’t live without its mother’s intervention, it does not deserve to live. Or, that because society has not invested any effort towards socializing/educating unborn babies, they really aren’t human and thus have no right to life. Those arguments and others like them all apply some exterior criterion in order to arbitrarily determine what is a person whose life deserves to be protected. I have a huge problem with that. Once you start picking and choosing what fits the definition of human, then you can justify killing at any stage of life—and, indeed, we have seen that occurring in the current debate about euthanasia.
I don’t see that arguing that a soul is present at one point, but not another, really helps things. There is no objective criterion by which one can determine if there is a soul; therefore, its presence is a matter of opinion. That then leaves the door open to justifying the extinction of human life at any stage—e.g., one could argue that the ability to talk is proof of a soul, and thus justify killing anyone who cannot talk.
That is why I choose to go with life, and not soul, as the defining factor. Life and humanity are both objective measures that can be determined by scientific methods. I also think that the ability to grow and develop as a human is necessary in the determination of whether the life should be protected. I’ve grown countless human cells in culture, which will never develop as human beings—I do not commit murder by killing them.
A grandiloquent video isn’t a reason for NASA. It is unConstitutional and uneeded. Don’t fall for the lie that without government spending basic science doesn’t get done.
That’s a Soviet/Fascist myth. America was built on privately funded basic science. We note the menace of government schooling - it becomes pro-government political indoctrination and mind control. Why do you think government funding of science would be any different?
You’ve named a series of opinions from the pro-abortion crowd that even in our current moral degeneracy can be easily defeated in a politically acceptable manner. You then disagree with my opinion which you are perfectly free to do. You then give me your opinion. Where’s the objective science in that thinking?
At some point we all must choose. How can you objectively determine humanity when by your very own statements there are pro-abortion opinions diametrically opposed. You cannot discuss human life without mention of a soul. There is no such thing as a souless human life.
The sperm isn’t a human being, nor is the egg. There is something more and the debate continues. Everyone has to choose. I think mine is fairly objective. If the fertilized egg is attached to the uterine wall it is capable of sustaining life, though it can still die. Before that it is not. This occurs at about the first weeks of pregnancy. That’s objective.
If you don’t want to conceive it allows for great flexibility and maturity. If you want to have an abortion you have a tough decision to make. You will be killing a human life, that is a person with a soul.
The soul is the realm of theology and philosophy, not science. As to what was previously thought about this, it was that ‘ensoulment’ happened when the baby ‘quickened’ within the womb, as there would be nothing for a soul to do within the baby until then.
Are you libertarian?
I am a scientist. I certainly can and do discuss human life without a soul. I cannot view a soul under a microscope, nor is there any biochemical test which will reveal it. But there are objective measures which I can apply to determine if something is alive or not, and so I choose life as a major determinant in the discussion of whether it is acceptable to have abortions or not.
The reason I brought up those particular pro-abortion arguments is that their proponents choose an arbitrary measure as their determinant of whether it is acceptable to kill a particular human being or not. Trying to use the presence of a soul as an argument is just as arbitrary. It is also easily countered by those who dismiss opposition to abortion as a religious belief. I try to stay away from arguments that depend on arbitrary measures. Abortion is wrong because it kills a human being. It is wrong because when it is just a few weeks old, that human feels the pain of the violence inflicted on it.
The sperm isn’t a human being, nor is the egg. There is something more and the debate continues. Everyone has to choose. I think mine is fairly objective. If the fertilized egg is attached to the uterine wall it is capable of sustaining life, though it can still die. Before that it is not. This occurs at about the first weeks of pregnancy. That’s objective.
The sperm is haploid human life, as is the ovum. Haploid humans have a very short life span, and have no chance of developing further. There is no particular reason to protect haploid human life. Once they join together and become a diploid zygote, there is a small chance of developing further. I actually do not see much reason to try to protect human life at that stage, either. The zygote may or may not begin to undergo cell division and become a blastocyst. The blastocyst may or may not implant into the uterus. The blastocyst may or may not produce an embryo capable of growth. To me, viable embryo formation marks the point at which we should protect life, because that is the first stage at which we know the human can develop further. My entire determination is made on the basis of objective scientific evidence.
If you don’t want to conceive it allows for great flexibility and maturity. If you want to have an abortion you have a tough decision to make. You will be killing a human life, that is a person with a soul.
I will not disagree. Women have a right and a responsibility to avoid pregnancy when they do not intend to have a child.
Exactly. I try to avoid discussions of abortion that aren't based in objective science.
They like science as much as they like freedom.
No, but the speaker in your video is an ignoramous when it comes to innovation and progress. That comes from individual liberty and privately allocated capital, not from politically motivated spending.
deGrasse Tyson is a leftist supporting big government.
His dad was director of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HARYOU He’s never held a job outside of academia or government according to his bio.
His mentors are also leftists and pro-government. Carl Sagan opposed Pres. Reagan’s SDI. You can find that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Personal_life_and_beliefs
deGrasse Tyson’s own information is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
He is agnostic, but only because firm proof against the existence of God cannot be found.
He is anti-religion and participated in this conference here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Belief:_Science,_Religion,_Reason_and_Survival
I would be careful to support political control of the sciences at all and NASA specifically. We don’t need them. Additionally, as a conservative you should be focused on the Constitution. NASA is unConstitutional.
Government injects politics into everything it does. Kennedy used space and NASA as a political tool. Look at the Food Pyramid, global warming, or the EPA for current examples of political abuse of science.
Your very definition of life is arbitrary. You call sperm and ovum "haploid human life". Consider six million sperm and ovus burnt in an oven. Would you condemn the oven tender with murder? Of course not, so we need a clear definition of a human life and when it begins. Working backwards we can argue that a baby minutes from birth is alive. How about three months from birth? Alive again. How about six months and so on and so forth? At some point we must pick when a baby is alive. This has scientific and legal and also religious ramifications.
What does the science say? Your definition of life is too broad and amounts to the absurd as I've demonstrated above. In the previous discussion with another poster who stated that "life begins at conception" I demonstrated that this is too strict. Yet, it is just as objective as your definition and just as scientific. You just don't agree with it. What then is a reasonable point to believe human life begins? When the blastocyst is implanted in the uterine wall. The blastocyst is an embryo and part of it forms the placenta. At the point of implantation the embryo can now receive oxygen and nutrients and continue to grow into a baby.
Let's continue with science. At about 22 weeks current medical technology can preserve that human life outside the womb. There is some debate on this and what viability is, but science is arbitrary, too. Scientists are constantly picking and choosing hypotheses and then quibbling over the evidences. We can simply pick this time as the very latest date life begins.
Politically, 5 months or so is plenty of time to put your affairs in order and decide to let the baby live or abort it. A law like this would be supported by 70-80% of voters. At the least a woman will have 4 months or so to make this decision. Politically we should debate whether the father has any say. If we permit fathers to have a say that may encourage less promiscuity, more careful consideration of the ramifications of uncommitted sexual relations, etc. That abortion is allowed is a political question and one that society must answer and answer for.
The question of belief must also be addressed. I don't support abortion for both religious and scientific reasons. Although, I wouldn't force my religious beliefs on you or anyone else it's obvious that life must begin at some point. Conception is too early and as time proceeds toward the normal 40 week birth it is more and more obvious that the baby is alive and deserves life. Where do I draw the line?
First, I believe in a loving God. I also believe in the enemy of all life, the Devil. I don't believe that a loving God would give evil absolute control over a soul and allow it to be condemned for eternity. I believe in an "age of accountability" around age 8. This makes sense to me based on personal experience and the science of brain maturation. It is a general rule. So from what point is a soul innocent? The endpoint as I've stated is 8 and the beginning point is at or about implantation 6-12 days from conception. For his own purposes and unbeknowst to me God deems that not all babies need be born or need grow to adulthood. Those souls do make it to heaven. That's my belief, but the starting point of when life begins is no more arbitrary than yours. I have arrived there based on a series of observable and reasonable interpretations of the data available.
Science isn't a religion, though it often is treated as such by its adherents. Science isn't a shield, nor is logic. At some point we must decide for ourselves. Our souls are measured in those decisions.
No, my definition of life is strictly scientific. Life is present when biological processes occur which are self-sustaining within their natural environment.
I already mentioned that for research purposes, I have grown countless human cells. I have subjected these cells to various poisons and I have genetically altered them. When I am finished with them, I kill them. The cells are verifiably human through any number of biochemical tests that confirm that their DNA and proteins are human. For as long as I provide food, water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and warmth, they remain verifiably alive--they even exhibit behaviors. The fact that I have killed countless millions (maybe even billions) of human cells does not make me a murderer because those cells do not have the capability of developing into a separate human being.
From a strictly scientific point of view, life is an intrinsic and continuous property that is passed from parent to progeny during reproduction (one living cell becomes two living cells). Once life is gone, it cannot return. One cannot pick a point and say "That's where life begins" because, scientifically, there is no such point.
For a baby to be alive at birth, the baby had to be alive at every point prior to its birth. It simply would not exist had a living human sperm not united with a living human ovum to form a living human zygote. If, at any point, the germ cell/zygote/blastocyst/embryo loses the property of being alive, that property is gone forever and a living baby will not result. And non-human sperms and ova simply cannot produce a human zygote. (Do you seriously think that dead sperm will fertilize dead ova if placed together in a petri dish?)
At the point of implantation the embryo can now receive oxygen and nutrients and continue to grow into a baby.
Let's continue with science. At about 22 weeks current medical technology can preserve that human life outside the womb. There is some debate on this and what viability is, but science is arbitrary, too. Scientists are constantly picking and choosing hypotheses and then quibbling over the evidences. We can simply pick this time as the very latest date life begins.
That is contradictory. You cannot describe an embryo in terms that indicate it is alive (scientifically, if it is growing, it is alive) and then go on to say we could pick an arbitrary point to say it is alive. That is completely nonsensical and unscientific.
There are other points to discuss, but I just realized that I have to leave for work.
I cannot quarrel with your analysis of life as a scientific matter. The issues seem to arise when (at beginning and end points) we consider that life deserving of protection from destruction and entitled to support of its continued existence. There would seem to be many points along the spectrum that might be considered. Determination of and disagreement about the point of beginning and of end is what has created so many disputes, primarily in the realm of abortion “rights” and end-of-life matters...
That's my exact definition, so how can we come to differing conclusions? Because you're practicing a type of scientism in an attempt to leave God or human spirituality out of it. This method is wholly incapable of answering any of life's serious questions.
You couple this with a type of halo effect over "scientific" explanations and definitions you agree with. This is serious bias. Look at your very next paragraph:
For as long as I provide food, water, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and warmth, they remain verifiably alive
Clearly, that's not the natural environment of human cells. Do these cells naturally seek you out? Do they normally occur in Petri dishes? So you've just violated your own definition. They may be cells from or of humans, but they're not human beings. You've not grown and killed numerous human beings have you? Of course not, so what are we discussing here?
My point is that as a Christian and given my beliefs it makes the most sense that a human zygote becomes a human being when the physical part of its humanity attaches to the uterine wall allowing it to meet the operational definition of life that you state above and that I accept. It is at this point that God would give it a spirit thereby completing it's humanity. If one leaves the spirit out of the equation you don't clarify, but muddy the waters.
Are you familiar with Genesis Chapters 1-3. They would be worth discussing particularly in this context.
Well Tyson’s personal stats are not what the debates about.
Your attacking the messenger, not the points made.
There are plenty of right wingers that support NASA and you of course know that.
I think your too extreme in being anti-government views.
A tiny portion of the federal government takes human presence beyond earth and benefits our nation in manifold ways. You could cancel NASA or double it. It wouldnt’ matter to the federal budget. It’s tiny.
“Our progress in space, taking giant steps for all mankind, is a tribute to American teamwork and excellence. Our finest minds in government, industry and academia have all pulled together. And we can be proud to say: We are first; we are the best; and we are so because we’re free. “America has always been greatest when we dared to be great. We can reach for greatness again. We can follow our dreams to distant stars, living and working in space for peaceful, economic, and scientific gain.” -Ronald Wilson Reagan
You chose Tyson as your standard bearer for the need of taxpayer funding for NASA. His politics are relevant. He’s a statist. In this case the messenger and message jibe completely.
Here’s the problem - if NASA is so small and so beneficial as to not be eliminated what about NPR, the Ad Council or numerous other “little” departments?
Even in the aggregate they don’t amount to much relative to entitlements. It’s the philosophy and the philosophy that got us the entitlement disaster. It’s the philosophy that is driving QE3 and the entire mess.
Reagan was wrong on NASA. He’s not infallible. He’s a politician.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.