Posted on 02/08/2002 5:20:43 PM PST by madprof98
IF I RECALL correctly, President Bush claimed to have received "gentleman's Cs" at Yale, where he majored in history. A look at his transcript shows the nearest thing to science he studied: one semester of astronomy and one of geology, in his freshman year.
At Ivy League schools there are nicknames for gut science classes, classes nonintellectuals or non-science majors can take to satisfy graduation requirements. Geology is called "rocks for jocks" and astronomy is "stars for poets" (but in this instance, perhaps we should call it "stars for Bar's boy"; labeling W a poet makes my teeth hurt).
In any case, Bush's academic record reveals a lot of emphasis on history and political science. There is no evidence he ever studied life sciences, religion or ethics.
So where does he get the cojones to cast himself as an expert in biology and theology? Hell, he might as well call himself a linguist, what with the neologisms he constantly comes up with. No, wait, I just answered my own question. He would make up a new word, and he would relabel himself. He'd call himself a "biologian."
I'm talking, of course, about Bush's foray into the politically charged topic of fetal "rights."
LAST SUMMER, BUSH set limits -- with a stroke of the pen -- on stem cell research, a branch of science that can use embryonic human stem cells to grow healthy tissues to replace damaged or diseased tissue resulting from Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, Parkinson's disease and other conditions, including brain and spinal injuries.
Last week, he managed to enact -- with a stroke of the pen -- his wish of conferring "personhood" on human embryos and developing fetuses by making them eligible for health care.
Let me give you his reasons. Poor women need prenatal care, so if we call their fetuses "children," those "children" will be eligible for health care under the Children's Health Insurance Program. In other words, a pregnant woman may now present her "unborn child" as a CHIP client, thereby receiving treatment for herself under a plan originally designed for living, breathing kids. Bush has spoken: Life begins at conception.
Put another way, Bush is opposed to abortion, and his linguistic trick of renaming a fetus "child" is a strategy for establishing it as a beneficiary of government programs -- a semantic hair's breadth away from calling abortion homicide.
As for stem cells, they are harvested from human embryos and can be triggered to multiply indefinitely. The embryos used are "leftovers" from assisted reproductive technology, i.e., they are extra fertilized eggs that couples trying for "test-tube babies" don't need. Bush is allowing federal funds for stem-cell research only if it's limited to the 60 or so existing cell lines already proliferating, "where the life-and-death decision has already been made," in his words.
He is opposed to launching new cell lines, because the process of isolating the cells results in the destruction of the embryos -- I mean children -- they come from, even though in most cases, the embryos would have been thrown away, and have never seen the inside of a womb.
THAT'S GENEROUS, GEORGE. There may not actually be 60 cell lines available -- the National Institutes of Health puts it at closer to 30 -- but whatever the number, consider the tiny gene pool this constitutes: DNA from a mere 60 or fewer donors. Last month the National Academy of Sciences called for continued work in the field of embryonic cloning (while favoring a ban of cloning for reproductive purposes, i.e., creating a child) -- but it's doubtful Congress will go along with their recommendation.
That leaves, by conservative estimates, 200,000 frozen embryos stored around the world, plus the unused embryos that will inevitably continue to accumulate as technology improves and couples continue to try to get pregnant by in vitro fertilization. But now in the United States, they're going to be called children, and they're not only off-limits to researchers, they're eligible for health care.
What happens when these unused embryos, stored sometimes for years in clinic freezers, reach the age of 5? Will they be required to go to school? Will their parents be cited for neglect if they fail to pay cryogenic visits? Would a doctor or clinician who eventually disposes of the fertilized eggs be found guilty of murder?
Will the poor pregnant women now eligible for health care under CHIP be found guilty of child endangerment if they don't show up at clinics? Would they be guilty of manslaughter if they underwent chemotherapy or radiation?
Under the pretzel logic of this proposal, Bush has granted power to the embryo and reduced the value of poor pregnant women to incubator. But that's just George, making up new names for things.
E-mail Debby Morse at dmorse@sfexaminer.com
and if its not a BABY, THEN YOU'RE NOT PREGNANT!!!
Because all of us "scientific" types know that a "fetus" is a dead, non-respirating entity. What self-hating scum abortion apologists are.
And exactly where does a journalist get the “cojones” to present herself as someone with a background in biology or theology? I don’t know of any colleges where Biology is a required course for a journalism major. And with views like the one she expresses in this article (not to mention that she’s from San Francisco) I’d say it’s a safe bet that she hasn’t seen the inside of a Church recently (sorry Debby, meditating over a crystal doesn’t pass for Religion or Theology.)
Keithtoo and Jonathon Spectre have it right- if it’s respiring, it’s a live BABY.
Owl _ Eagle
“Guns before butter.”
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." - Paul Begala.
I'll bet she was smiling big when the forehead spoke those now-famous words.
and if its not a BABY, THEN YOU'RE NOT PREGNANT!!!
I do not think your pro-choice arguments will be liked here. You certainly don't think this specious nonsense is pro-life, do you?
Hank
Hey, I've got to go there Wednesday. Pray that God waits until Thursday before he rains down fire and brimstone, ok?
Actually if he does it on Tuesday, then maybe I can get out of going. :-)
Baby what? These are true for all animals. Movement, sensation, are true of all embryoes as some stage. These do not a human make.
These continued ignorant arguments are playing right into the hands of the pro-choice movement. Please think before helping to increase the number of abortions being performed every day.
Hank
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.