Replies

I have a complex view on both issues.

As things stand now, we are deeply entangled in the Middle East whether we ever should've been or not. So, since we are mixed up in all that, we should definitely support free democratic societies versus authoritarian tyrannies. In other words, we should support Israel versus its enemies. And, since we are involved, we should oppose all forms of unjust violence (e.g., targeting civilians, etc) in other words, we should oppose terrorism. Moreover, since we were attacked ourselves, we must respond to that with devastating force.

But, in the grand scheme of things and for the long run, we should get out of the Middle East altogether. I feel the same way about Europe and about East Asia - once we tie up loose ends of course, and to the extent that our presence is no longer required for national security. Those are of course items for considerable debate, but obviously I have a very restrictive view of what deployments are truly necessary. To the extent that we are involved anywhere, though, we should support moral government - by our standards - over immoral government.

As for stem cell research, I am very conflicted. I regard myself as mostly pro-life. However, my inclination is to place the boundary at first heartbeat or brainwave (around the 40 day mark). Even if a more restrictive standard were preferable, I would never personally agree with a threshold set before implantation. Beyond that, however, I do think that it's quite problematic that anyone should have to fund endeavors that they regard as murder. Moreover, I do not support our current grant-mill funding system at all.

In other words, I don't have any problem with embryonic stem cell research limited only to leftover embryos from in vitro clinics (and obviously I've no problem with in vitro technology). However, I know that other people do. So, my first impulse would be to focus heavily on methods that do not require destroying embryos. I mean, why not? If we can do everything that way that we could do with embryonic stem cells, then why do we need to even bother with the morally controversial alternative?

So, in short, my inclination would be to go with the current rules at this time, even though I personally disagree with them very strongly. My true position though - what I think should be funded so long as the feds are in the funding business - is the same as Senator Frist's.