Friday, March 19, 2004

An Ongoing Holocaust Peter Singer, one of the world's top bioethicists, unsurprisingly devotes part of his new book to Bush's August 2001 decsion on stem-cell research. [W]hat should we think about the moral argument that Bush was making? I accept his claim that the early embryo is "human life." Embryos formed from the sperm and eggs of human beings are certainly human, no matter how early in their development they may be. They are of the species Homo sapiens, and not of any other species. We can tell when they are alive, and when they have died. So as long as they are alive, they are human life. The real problem with Bush's argument lies in his assumption that if the embryos in question are human life, they are "therefore something precious to be protected." Why does the fact that something is human life mean that it is something precious that we should protect? Every year in the United States, millions of embryos die. Each of them had the unique genetic potential of an individual human being. These embryos do not die in the laboratories, nor in abortion clinics, nor after women have taken RU486, the "abortion pill." They die as part of a natural process that has, as far as we know, been going on as long as there have been human beings. Some scientists estimate that for every embryo that becomes a child, four fertilized eggs fail to make it. Others think that the ratio is closer to one lost fertilized egg for every child born. Even on the lower estimate, more than three million embryos die annually in the United States from natural causes. These are embryos that have failed to implant in the women's uterus. They are released with her menstrual bleeding. In most cases the woman never even knows that she conceived. Should we feel that this loss of embryos is a terrible think, a kind of ongoing holocaust? If each human embryo is "something precious to be protected," then surely that is how we should feel. Perhaps the president should consider the use of federal funds for research designed to understand why these embryos are so frequently lost, and to find ways of given them the protection that their precious nature requires? Bush may be unaware of the number of human embryos that die in this way. But he has appointed a Council on Bioethics to advise him. The council is chaired by the prominent University of Chicago bioethicist Leon Kass, and its members include scientists who know the relevant facts. Will the council advise the president about this huge, constant loss of precious embryos, and inquire into what can be done to stop it? That seems unlikely. No one, not even the staunchest opponents of research on human embryos in Congress, is planning to fund such a research program. The truth is, politics aside, virtually no one except couples who want to have a child really cares about the loss of embryos. And even couples seeking to conceive only care about whether they will be able to have a child. They don't really care for the particular embryo that was lost. More often than not, they aren't even aware it ever happened. [The President of Good and Evil 37-8] How could God let such a thing happen? 11:04:41 AM    comment [] I'm Eric Alterman, bitch! Eric Alterman appeared on Dennis Miller the other night, and after checking out the video, all I can say is "Wow." How low has Dennis Miller fallen? 4:35:55 AM    comment [] Truth by Decree In case there was any question whether our invasion of Iraq has made the nation and the world safer, Congress has passed a resolution to that very effect. Introduced by Henry Hyde (R -- Illinois) on March 11, House Resolution 557 affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq; commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime; commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service. It passed on March 17, 327-93. House Democrats complained that they weren't party to the drafting of the resolution. Many agreed with Jim McGovern (D -- Massachusetts), who said, "I do not believe that the world is a safer, less dangerous place than it was one year ago." A few, such as Tom Lantos (D -- California), were downright dismissive: "The American people have not sent us here just to be an amen chorus for this administration. There are serious problems and we should be debating serious solutions." However, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D -- Maryland) had expected that most Democrats would vote in favor of the resolution as an expression of support for the troops and the Iraqis: "I believe the Iraq resolution is seen as congratulating our troops on the outstanding way in which they executed the war. In that context I would expect most to support the resolution ... I am prepared personally to congratulate our troops. I'm going to vote for it on that basis. I also want to encourage the Iraqi people to strive to achieve the kind of nation they want." [Quoted from the March 16 Congressional Quarterly, cited on CSPAN] Democrats ended up voting 105-90 in favor. Postscript: Although the media has been curiously silent about HR 557, word certainly reached the President's base. For example, the Presidential Prayer Team made the following prayer request this week: As  members of the House of Representatives debate a resolution commending U.S. forces in Iraq, asserting "that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq," give thanks for the diligent efforts on the part of American troops.  Pray for the success of American efforts and for those Iraqis who are committed to bringing democracy to their country.  Give thanks, as well, for the successful defeat of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of those so markedly oppressed by his rule. [Note: "The Presidential Prayer Team is a spiritual movement of the American people which is not affiliated with any political party or official."] 2:07:22 AM    comment [] Government Revives "Fallout Analysis" The NY Times is reporting that the U.S. Government is reviving our capacity for "fallout analysis" -- a capacity that waned after the end of the Cold War. What is fallout analysis? It is a form of forensics used to identify the perpetrators of a nuclear attack. The goal, officials and weapons experts both inside and outside the government say, is to figure out quickly who exploded such a bomb and where the nuclear material came from. That would clarify the options for striking back. Officials also hope that if terrorists know a bomb can be traced, they will be less likely to try to use one. In a secretive effort that began five years ago but whose outlines are just now becoming known, the government's network of weapons laboratories is hiring new experts, calling in old-timers, dusting off data and holding drills to sharpen its ability to do what is euphemistically known as nuclear attribution or post-event forensics. It is also building robots that would go into an affected area and take radioactive samples, as well as field stations that would dilute dangerous material for safe shipment to national laboratories. And what are the benefits of reviving our fallout analysis capability? Dr. Jay C. Davis, a nuclear scientist who in 1999 helped found the Pentagon's part of the governmentwide effort, said the precautions would "pay huge dividends after the event, both in terms of the ability to identify the bad actor and in terms of establishing public trust." In a nuclear crisis, Dr. Davis added, the identification effort would be vital in "dealing with the desire for instant gratification through vengeance." [snip] "It's a very hard job," said William Happer, a physicist at Princeton who led a panel that evaluated the identification work. Mr. Happer said he was worried that a rush for retribution after a nuclear attack might cut short the time needed for careful analysis. "If we lose a city," he said, "we might not wait around that long." Yes, it would be a shame to blame the wrong group or government for a terrorist attack. Certainly if D.C. is hit by a radiological bomb, I'll be calling for an invasion of Venezuela. But it would be nice to get confirmation of my suspicions from the Administration first. WWDT Reminder: This is our fourth public service reminder to print out your handy-dandy government charts for surviving terrorist attacks (See the previous ones here, here, and here). Have you put them on your refrigerator yet? The next step in responding to a nuclear attack (see picture above) is to get the hell out of the area. 1:00:57 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2004 David V. Johnson. Last update: 4/2/04; 12:00:47 AM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.