Via the Marquette Warrior, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby comments on the disingenuous nature of much of the Democrat's response to President Bush's opposition to embryo-destructive research. Bush, they say, is ignoring "science" as if that answers the question of what should and should not be permitted in its name.
In this, the Dems remind me of Paulie Walnuts in the Sopranos episode "From Where To Eternity." Paulie has been visiting a psychic who has convinced him that he is being haunted by the ghosts of those he has killed. Tony expresses skepticism but Paulie alludes to "research" that has "proven" this kind of thing. With an expression of fear and submission, he gives an irrefutable response. "It's science, T. It's science."
There is a double irony. The obvious one is that Paulie cites science in support of claims that are pretty unscientific. The second is that he invokes science as the new God. When it claims supremacy, all heads must bow and all knees must bend.
Both levels of irony may be present here. This time the obvious one is the elevation of science to an arbiter of good and evil. Bush is not "ignoring" the science as much as he is saying that just because a thing can be done does not mean that it should be done. On another level, though, it may be that the "promise" of embryo-destructive research has become a materialist's Holy Grail.
6 comments:
What annoys me the most about this whole thing, is that Bush is saying the Feds won't fund embryonic reaserch. He's not saying they can't do it with private funding. Unfortunately, like the Man-caused Global Warming canard, they only highlite what they want and try to bury the rest.
Curious that only SOME 'science' is acceptable to the Progressives.
Not BGH. Not DDT.
"Curious that only SOME 'science' is acceptable to the Progressives.
Not BGH. Not DDT."
Or put another way, it's curious that only some science is acceptable to the partisan hacks of either persuasion. DDT is the best pesticide known to man and embryos don't have brains regardless of which ridiculous party you're in.
To say "it's science" is just a short hand for saying, "the reasons for my position on this are based on reasonable conjecture and verifiable data." So it's not "the new God." It's real.
Doobie guy
There is no scientific observation that can tell us what level of respect ought to be accorded nascent human life such as embryos. Science can tell you that embryos don't have a brain. It can't tell you what that means.
"Science can tell you that embryos don't have a brain. It can't tell you what that means."
Yes. That is exactly what I said.
There is no scientific observation that can tell us what level of respect ought to be accorded nascent human life such as embryos.
There is, however, a distinct difference in how that respect plays out that ought to be considered: We can "respect" the embryos and use their potential to possibly help millions, or we could "respect" the embryos and let them defrost in the garbage bin.
Post a Comment