18th August 2004, 2:16 PM
Abortion: Woman's right to choose sure, but that stops at killing your kids. Put them up for adoption, or wait until technology catches up and you can stick them in a tube to let them grow up, but no killing. One last thing, terminology. Honestly, many MANY decades ago, and even to this day, when you see a pregnant woman, WHEN have you EVER heard her say "Oh, the fetus is kicking!". Thought so, it's always "the baby's kicking!". Since the word has always been used for the fetal stage of human growth, widespread, for such a long time, and since that is what determines the definition of a word, I would CERTAINLY say that fetuses can ACCURATLY be called babies. I say this also because really old dictionaries predating this whole word battle also list it as a valid definition, and also because baby was never meant to be a scientifically specific term. Animal's young are also called babies, and the youngest of a group of siblings, even if they are 10 years old, is often called the baby of the bunch, and that isn't slang either. At the same time, it's totally irrelevent to the argument. The only reason either side fights over such a frivilous thing is as a mind game of sorts. The fact that they can, and are, called babies is in no way some sort of support for pro-lifer's stance. I just wanted to make that clear.
Immigration: Eh, I'm fine with people coming here if they want to. Honestly, I don't have much of an opinion because I don't exactly see the big deal. Illegal immigrants are the only sticking point, simply for the sake of the law, but hey, allowing a lot more in so there are no illegals is a solution that's fine by me. I just haven't put much thought into this.
Gay Marriage: All I can say is let the states decide for themselves, other than that, I honestly don't care in any legal way about this.
Death Penalty: It all depends on the odds here. I suppose I would be for it for murderers, and them alone, so long as the chances of an innocent person being put to death are slim to none. If the odds are too high, then I am against it. Better to let 1000 guilty go free than... chase after them... wait how does that go?
Religion: Not exactly sure if there's a divide on religion here outside of the seperation issue. Government should never force religion on people, and as institutions they shouldn't really seem to support it (let the little pointless stuff like the pledge and money slide, honestly I don't care if those get removed or not because they are non-issues that don't affect my faith), but I do believe that the individual people working IN the government should be allowed to express their religious thoughts. The President can't say "as President, I believe Christianity is the good and right thing for all Amercans", but I think the President SHOULD be allowed to say "Personally, I think Christianity is the good and right thing for all Americans". The key difference is what role the President was in in those statements. Also, and this is just in the sense of sheer manners, even if they are just personal statements, an individual shouldn't flood the media with their religious views.
Welfare: I don't think handouts are the way to go really, but rather teaching the people to fish by giving those who aren't able to afford it a lot more educational oppertunities so they can work and make their own way in the world.
Education: Giving them money? Well some places certainly could use it, but that's not the solution. I suspect a lot of changes wouldn't need a lot of money to fix the problems, just a totally different educational approach
Affirmitive Action: Well this is a sticky subject. Honestly, while I really don't think there's "reverse racism" going on, I also have a hard time supporting hiring people who may not be qualified just because of some sort of minority quota. That might actually encourage a little racism on the part of the people doing the hiring (I can imagine the poor guy, even if he was qualified, being treated like some sort of lamprey just because of color thanks to this, in fact I do believe that's already happening). Affirmitive Action is something I believe serves a purpose, or more accuratly, DID serve a purpose. Racism among higher ups in companies can be traced to SOMEWHAT recent times. At those times, something like this really WAS needed. However, honestly aside from situations involving affirmitive action, I don't think there's that much racism any more. There's the south, I mean the REAL south, but they never even caught up with indoor plumbing, so they might just be a lost cause. Let them devolve into monkeys as nature seems to be intending and the problem will take care of itself I say :D. There is the occasional person, and even the group of 5 or so skin heads hanging around the mall creeping people out here and there (that deserve, and get, their arses kicked), but honestly I'd say racism is on it's last legs as some widespread epidemic like it used to be. As such, I'd say affirmitive action is pretty much a dead concept. If there really is still a corporate racism problem to be dealt with (oh yes, this is for colleges too of course), then I really think something else should be done rather than AA. AA just doesn't seem valid as a solution to whatever remains of the problem...
Foreign Policy: America is PART of the world, so I think it should actively participate in things. The rest? Hey, I'm no taxi driver, I don't have all the answers!
Stem Cell Research: Almost COMPLETELY for it! Honestly, this is ONLY a charged issue because people, on BOTH sides, have no idea what stem cells really are. No, you can't directly transplant stem cells from ANOTHER PERSON into your body any more than you could transplant their kidney into your body. Either way, there will be rejection, because the stem cells don't actually "copy" their surroundings, they detect nearby cells and turn to the DNA inside them to determine what they should turn into. Put human stem cells in a pig and, aside from the stem cells likely not even being able to know what they are next to or what section of the human DNA to access to become something, they are likely to just get killed off by the pig's immune system. Stem cells are most plentiful in fetuses, and other baby stages, this is true because they are undeveloped. However, stem cells are also present, in MUCH smaller numbers (too small to be useful if you just directly harvest them all), in adults. Most are found inside bones, waiting to become blood (bones are where new blood cells are made, in the marrow)). Harvest ALL of those, you could actually help them, but you would destroy the body's ability to make new blood cells. Not good. Baby cells are harvested for learning experience mainly. Also, there is another possible use. The DNA from the stem cells could be replaced with DNA of the future host, so then the stem cells WOULD have the right DNA.
Anyway, my end opinion is stem cell research should DEFINATLY be continued, and honestly, if the bodies of babies have been donated to science, it's no worse to experiment with them than with the bodies of dead adults. HOWEVER, it stops with trying to convince mothers to sacrifice their unborn for the stem cells. I don't think that will happen though. Also, scientists would be foolish to think that there is some endless supply of stem cells waiting to be found in dead fetuses. There aren't THAT many! The waiting lists would still be around just like waiting for some poor organ donar to die so they could get a new kidney. In general, both sides have some big misconceptions about this. Stem cells are certainly promising, but counting on the dead as an endless source is foolish. The better way is finding a way to culture a person's own natural stem cells, that would allow many more, and also asking people to donate some stem cells for cultures just like with blood drives. That would provide MANY more stem cells both for an immediate transplant need (near immediate, no matter what, they still need to get that person's DNA in there which means they will have to start that organ's growing process from the very beginning even if they had a full culture). Anyway, I'm all for it.
Immigration: Eh, I'm fine with people coming here if they want to. Honestly, I don't have much of an opinion because I don't exactly see the big deal. Illegal immigrants are the only sticking point, simply for the sake of the law, but hey, allowing a lot more in so there are no illegals is a solution that's fine by me. I just haven't put much thought into this.
Gay Marriage: All I can say is let the states decide for themselves, other than that, I honestly don't care in any legal way about this.
Death Penalty: It all depends on the odds here. I suppose I would be for it for murderers, and them alone, so long as the chances of an innocent person being put to death are slim to none. If the odds are too high, then I am against it. Better to let 1000 guilty go free than... chase after them... wait how does that go?
Religion: Not exactly sure if there's a divide on religion here outside of the seperation issue. Government should never force religion on people, and as institutions they shouldn't really seem to support it (let the little pointless stuff like the pledge and money slide, honestly I don't care if those get removed or not because they are non-issues that don't affect my faith), but I do believe that the individual people working IN the government should be allowed to express their religious thoughts. The President can't say "as President, I believe Christianity is the good and right thing for all Amercans", but I think the President SHOULD be allowed to say "Personally, I think Christianity is the good and right thing for all Americans". The key difference is what role the President was in in those statements. Also, and this is just in the sense of sheer manners, even if they are just personal statements, an individual shouldn't flood the media with their religious views.
Welfare: I don't think handouts are the way to go really, but rather teaching the people to fish by giving those who aren't able to afford it a lot more educational oppertunities so they can work and make their own way in the world.
Education: Giving them money? Well some places certainly could use it, but that's not the solution. I suspect a lot of changes wouldn't need a lot of money to fix the problems, just a totally different educational approach
Affirmitive Action: Well this is a sticky subject. Honestly, while I really don't think there's "reverse racism" going on, I also have a hard time supporting hiring people who may not be qualified just because of some sort of minority quota. That might actually encourage a little racism on the part of the people doing the hiring (I can imagine the poor guy, even if he was qualified, being treated like some sort of lamprey just because of color thanks to this, in fact I do believe that's already happening). Affirmitive Action is something I believe serves a purpose, or more accuratly, DID serve a purpose. Racism among higher ups in companies can be traced to SOMEWHAT recent times. At those times, something like this really WAS needed. However, honestly aside from situations involving affirmitive action, I don't think there's that much racism any more. There's the south, I mean the REAL south, but they never even caught up with indoor plumbing, so they might just be a lost cause. Let them devolve into monkeys as nature seems to be intending and the problem will take care of itself I say :D. There is the occasional person, and even the group of 5 or so skin heads hanging around the mall creeping people out here and there (that deserve, and get, their arses kicked), but honestly I'd say racism is on it's last legs as some widespread epidemic like it used to be. As such, I'd say affirmitive action is pretty much a dead concept. If there really is still a corporate racism problem to be dealt with (oh yes, this is for colleges too of course), then I really think something else should be done rather than AA. AA just doesn't seem valid as a solution to whatever remains of the problem...
Foreign Policy: America is PART of the world, so I think it should actively participate in things. The rest? Hey, I'm no taxi driver, I don't have all the answers!
Stem Cell Research: Almost COMPLETELY for it! Honestly, this is ONLY a charged issue because people, on BOTH sides, have no idea what stem cells really are. No, you can't directly transplant stem cells from ANOTHER PERSON into your body any more than you could transplant their kidney into your body. Either way, there will be rejection, because the stem cells don't actually "copy" their surroundings, they detect nearby cells and turn to the DNA inside them to determine what they should turn into. Put human stem cells in a pig and, aside from the stem cells likely not even being able to know what they are next to or what section of the human DNA to access to become something, they are likely to just get killed off by the pig's immune system. Stem cells are most plentiful in fetuses, and other baby stages, this is true because they are undeveloped. However, stem cells are also present, in MUCH smaller numbers (too small to be useful if you just directly harvest them all), in adults. Most are found inside bones, waiting to become blood (bones are where new blood cells are made, in the marrow)). Harvest ALL of those, you could actually help them, but you would destroy the body's ability to make new blood cells. Not good. Baby cells are harvested for learning experience mainly. Also, there is another possible use. The DNA from the stem cells could be replaced with DNA of the future host, so then the stem cells WOULD have the right DNA.
Anyway, my end opinion is stem cell research should DEFINATLY be continued, and honestly, if the bodies of babies have been donated to science, it's no worse to experiment with them than with the bodies of dead adults. HOWEVER, it stops with trying to convince mothers to sacrifice their unborn for the stem cells. I don't think that will happen though. Also, scientists would be foolish to think that there is some endless supply of stem cells waiting to be found in dead fetuses. There aren't THAT many! The waiting lists would still be around just like waiting for some poor organ donar to die so they could get a new kidney. In general, both sides have some big misconceptions about this. Stem cells are certainly promising, but counting on the dead as an endless source is foolish. The better way is finding a way to culture a person's own natural stem cells, that would allow many more, and also asking people to donate some stem cells for cultures just like with blood drives. That would provide MANY more stem cells both for an immediate transplant need (near immediate, no matter what, they still need to get that person's DNA in there which means they will have to start that organ's growing process from the very beginning even if they had a full culture). Anyway, I'm all for it.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)