Get it Together, California
OK, so I’m reading the Reuters newswire, and what do I see but a story about California. And, what I saw made me nervous for the future of our state and the women who live there. I’m posting the body of the article for anyone to read.
There is a proposition on the ballot that will most likely pass unless people make enough noise to stop it. Fight for women’s rights and safety by voting no on Proposition 73. While, it may sound like an honest enough proposal to have doctors notify the parents’ of girls younger than 18 if they are trying to get an abortion, the prop goes farther than that by including the “morning-after” pill, RU-486, and including language that would define the term abortion in such a way as to possibly open a door to future attacks on abortion rights.
This is an important issue to me. We don’t need to go backward in defining women’s rights, we should be moving forward, and this is an assault on what we have already gained.
Filed under Science & Politics | Comment (0)Papal Perplexment
An article in Science magazine discusses recent developments with regards to the view of evolution by the Catholic church. Last week Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, made the statement in the New York Times that he did not believe that the church could abide by the views of neo-Darwinism. I’m guessing that neo-Darwinism refers to the evolution of organisms over time due to random genetic mutation (of which Darwin had no concept when writing On the Origin of Species).
Tags: Science, Evolution, technology, News, Media
Filed under Science & Politics | Comment (0)The Intelligent President
Ok, so I don’t post for weeks, and suddenly twice in one week. Well, some topics just shouldn’t be passed up. A fellow compatriot in the blogosphere sent me this story. It has people all up in arms because of the implied support by our president of teaching intelligent design in schools. I’d like to suggest that maybe el presidente does believe in intelligent design, but that’s not what he said during the press conference.
Filed under Science & Politics | Comment (0)How Far Can it Go?
I learned this morning that the House of Reps. has passed two bills related to stem cell research. The first, which would ease restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research to allow the use of IVF leftovers, passed at 238-194 with the majority of supporters being Democrats, but a suprising number of Republicans crossed the line as well. Although supported by many, this bill did not have the votes to beat a presidental veto. It will next go to the Senate for a vote. The second bill was almost unanimously passed (only one crazy libertarian detractor!), and will increase funding for adult and umbilical cord stem cell research.
While both of these bills will be supremely beneficial to stem cell research, only the first is up for a fight. It lacks majority support because people are simplifying it to an abortion/right-to-life issue. It is sad to me that people can’t see past that over-simplification to the truth of the lives that embryonic stem cells have the potential to save.
I think that the use of the term embryo is unfortunate. Most people envision a fetus when they hear the word embryo; something that they can picture as having human characeristics. The stage of development during which stem cells are collected though, is a simple ball of cells about as far from having human traits as I am from becoming an eagle.
Let’s get things straight people. We need to figure out how to help the living live before we fight over the unborn.
Tags: Science, Radio, technology, Podcast, Podcasting, News, Media, Politics
Filed under Science & Politics | Comment (0)Hippo… er… Hipocracy
I just don’t understand the difference. Could someone explain to me, please…
From the New York Times – Last week, Mr. Bush reiterated his position on the Castle bill. “I made it very clear to Congress that the use of federal money, taxpayers’ money to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is – I’m against that,” he said. “And therefore, if the bill does that, I will veto it.”
From the A.P. – As of Monday, May 23, 2005, at least 1,634 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. At least 1,248 died as a result of hostile action, according to the Defense Department. The figures include four military civilians.
Is one kind of death different from the other? Is oil and American emperialism that much more important than the health of American citizens? I think it must be to our leaders.
Tags: Science, Radio, technology, Podcast, Podcasting, News, Media, Politics
Filed under Science & Politics | Comment (0)
