Posted by
Bill Crawford on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:33:47 PM
Far be it for someone as self centered and myopic as this President to simply present his reasoning for re-allowing federal funding for stem cell research. He simply has to take time out to show that those who opposed him were without any merit whatsoever.
This is not how it was presented in August, 2001 by his predecessor. Bush put forward an outline of either side of the debate, and presented his moral premises for making the decision he did. This is why the NY Times presumptively labelled him "the philosopher king" on the occasion.
No, Obama is different. Because HE has no moral problem with using dead embryos, ipso facto, there IS no moral problem. Therefore, the use of a morality premise in dealing with the question is inherently an illegitimate interruption of the science.
For those of you out there that, like the President, do what you can to avoid the question of where human life begins, let's skip past the "above my pay grade" excuse and try another science corollary:
Some of the best research done on hypothermia is the records made in the early 1940's, when German doctors started putting flight suits on Jewish prisoners, wired them up and dropped them into 37 degree water to see how they reacted before they died of exposure. Would an objection to THESE experiments be an interruption of the scientific process?
Political debate is just like any other debate. Some people master the thesis/ premise/ logic process, and others try to win by posing themselves as the definition of superiority. Obama would make a wonderful Emporer. He just took the wrong job title.
Follow up: in perusing the transcript of the announcement, it struck me recently that it was awfully odd that Obama would wax so eloquent about not letting ideology get in the way of science, and then casually announce a moral barrier in refusing to allow cloning. So it seems that it isn't morality or ideology itself that he doesn't like to see interrupt pure science- just the ones HE disagrees with.
So, in the same paragraph, he at once poses himself as above it all, and then stoops to what he condemns. Welcome to the world of moral relativism. You know, whatever works for you today. And the next day, if what you need makes you contradict yourself, so what?