Stem Cells

Yesterday, President Bush issued his first veto in his 5 and a half year term against the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (H.R. 810). The Bill proposed to modify the restrictions on federal research funding of stem cells. The current law only allows federal funding to be used on the 22 available stem cell lines, most of which are contaminated and unusable. The vetoed bill proposed to allow embryonic stem cell research to be conducted on excess embryos that are created by in vitro fertilization clinics and are going to be discarded anyway. The Stem Cell Research Bill was passed by large margins in both the House and Senate, but not large enough margins to overrule a presidential veto.

President Bush based his veto on moral grounds. He claimed that he did not want to sacrifice innocent life in order to boost scientific research. But what is President Bush's moral ground for vetoing the bill?

The President knows how beneficial stem cell research can be to solving some of the most difficult medical issues. The bill specifically limits new lines of stem cells to embryos that are going to be created and discarded regardless of the bill. Due to the President's religious beliefs he feels that life begins at conception and that all embryos have a soul and should be considered of equal worth to a born human being. This is purely a theological belief that has no medical or scientific basis. Any reputable Doctor knows enough about anatomy to know that senteince and cognition do not occur in these embryos. Thus, the president does not want to use federal funds to support the bill based on an unprovable faith.

Although everyone should be entitled to the faith of their choice, federal policy should not be based on beliefs that are unprovable. Federal Policy should be limited to arguments based on reason and evidence. Values are extremely important, but only values that you are able to ground in the real world, with reason.

Reason says, that these embryos are going to be created and discarded for in vitro fertilization and can either be used to help people who suffer from various illnesses or they can not. Medical Science also shows that these embryos are not sentient and are largely just a group of cells. The Humans that illnesses can be helped are sentient. Can we honestly put the rights of a group of non-sentient cells that only have the potential to become human life above the interest of sentient people? Furthermore, the cells are going to be discarded anyway. In my opinion, your values are skewed if you believe non-sentient cells that are going to be destroyed anyways have more rights than humans that are sick and the stem cell research can save their lives.

An Open Mind

Having an open mind is an idea that liberals use against conservatives, that conservatives use against liberals, and that just about everybody uses against everybody.

Everyone thinks that they have an open mind regardless of if they actually do. Everyone thinks that others that do not agree with their world view are either not smart enough to understand their logic or do not have an open mind (Personally, I usually find that different ideas have to do with different values, more than anything else).

But what exactly is this concept of 'Open Mindedness'?

Being open minded is a willingness to hear other ideas that are not part of our normal train of thought. It does not imply that you have to agree with the idea, merely that there is an honest effort to understand the position. This, also, does not imply the need to break moral principles or beliefs. Having an open mind is a state of mind, not a moral code. No system of morality has a monopoly on an open mind.

Everyone wants to believe that they are open minded and are willing to seriously entertain other people's ideas. Everyone also has a desire to yearn for a 'truth', or what is out there, or knowledge. If for no other reason, than for self-growth and curiousity. Deep down, I think everyone tries to evaluate what they learn. Because they evaluate each thing they learn, everyone believes that they are open minded.

This does not mean everyone is open minded, only that they think that they are.

Many people are closed minded and dogmatic, unwilling to give ideas outside of thier normal thoughts a chance.

An open mind is about intellectual honesty and a willingness to change your beliefs if you think there are better ideas. It should never mean that you need to compromise your moral principles or dignity.

If you only superficially analyze new ideas and then tosses them out, you are not open minded. The intensity that you struggle with the new idea determines how open minded you are. This is regardless of the ultimate verdict of the new idea.

The key to an open mind is being true to yourslef and struggling with other ideas.

Also, one must be willing to accept that you may be closed minded in certain ways and not be able to realize it. But willing to struggle with the ideas and respecting the person who holds them is enough to be open minded.

Thus one can be super religious, a hippie, non-religious, part of corporate america, foreign, domestic, democrat, republican, communist, capitalist, liberal or conservative and be open minded or close minded. The particular beliefs and moral code is unimportant, the honesty to struggle with the new ideas is what is important.

Those who masquerade their particular beliefs, instead of intellectual honesty, as open mindedness are closed minded. Weather you are a Capitalist telling the communist that his system of economics could never work or a Hippie telling a non-drug user that he is closed minded for not taking drugs, does not matter. You are closed minded if you push your beliefs at the expense of honesty.

The people who define their beliefs as open minded are far less honest in their struggle to understand other ideas, and why they would be held, then the people who are dedicated to the concept of honesty.

Gay Marriage

One of the most controversial issues of the day is gay marriage/civil unions.

I am of the opinion that gay marriage should be legal. But in order to be able to take this position, I think it is only fair to give the strongest objections against gay marriage and analyze the objection's on its merits.

1. Gay Marriage is unnatural
(part a) Biblically speaking
(part b) Biologically speaking
2. Gay Marriage would encourage people to be gay or make our culture more tolerant of that life style
3. I don't like the culture of gays, and gay marriage would only increase its acceptablity
4. I don't want to get hit on by gays. What if gays hit on my child and turn him/her gay.
5.Gay Marriage devalues the value of straight marriage
6.Gay Marriage dehumanizes peoples dignity

I think these cover many of the objections to gay marriage. So lets take a look.

1.) Gay Marriage is unnatural- In order to make this claim, one has to first define what they mean as natural. There are two forms of this argument that I have seen; biblically based and biologically based. Many religions define marriage as between a man and a woman and that it is a sin to do otherwise. Since many textual interpretations are possible, I mean that religions interpret text in the manner of their cultural traditions. For example, in the Judeo-Chirstian tradition in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, among several other passages, the Bible speak against gay marriage.

If the question posed is does such and such religion's text say that gay marriage is sinful? I think one can make a pretty good case that it is true. One could probably even make a strong case that most old religions, and more traditional religions, have this belief in common. But this is a seperate question from should society permit gay marriage. In order to make the jump between the two questions one must believe that society should litgate and make laws based on articles of faith.

Faith is good in many respects, most importantly in finding meaning in life. However according to the merriam-webster dictionary faith is "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof". I do not believe a belief that is grounded in a text that is "not [proven]" should dictate the policy of government. Many people believe different things, government should not be in the business of forcing a system of belief on people. It is a very high standard to want to curtail peoples freedom (in this case towrds marrying the person that they choose regardless of gender). Personally I do not think taking the word of an unproven text is signifcant enough to do so. Even if you believe full heartedly in the Bible or another Holy text and think people are foolish for not doing the same. What right do you have to make decisions for others? Shouldn't they be allowed to choose their own fate and face the rewards and consequences accordingly.

The second part of this objection involves biology. I like to call it the puzzle argument becuase people liken anatomy to a puzzle. Teleologically speaking, were we not created such that the man and women fit together and serve the purpose of reproducing, while gay relations do not fit like a puzzle or reproduce. Doesn't this prove that it is an error? Personally, I believe in anomolous evolution and believe that it explains our observations far better than creationism or intelligent design. But even if for argument sake one believes we were created, and created with a purpose, I do not think one could make that claim.

If it is so unnatural, then why would it have appeared in nature? The fact of the matter is it does appear in human societies regardless of culture. Which leads to the idea that gay relations are a natural occurance. One could object that this is the naturalistic fallacy (just because it appears in nature does not mean it is moral). For example, murder appears in every society regardless of culture, one wouldn't advocate murder. This is a fair objection. But I pose the following question in response. Murder, stealing among other crimes pose harm to another person. What harm is there in two people having gay relations? and further what is the harm in allowing gay marriage? Is the mere thought of others having gay relations such an abomination that it justifies keeping two people that love each other away and without the same rights of couples of opposite gender? Personally i think peoples' right to have equal access to a partner, regardless of sex, is far less of a resrtiction on freedom than others rights to not see a married gay couple. If one believes otherwise, I don't suppose their is much else I can say.

2.) Gay Marriages encourages people to be gay and increases tolerance of the culture- Most biologist believe that one's choice in sexuality is primarily infuenced by genetics. In which case, gay marriage would not encourage people to be gay becuase if you are gay or straight, nothing is changing that. Even if one considers the environment has influence, or that people who are gay can act straight. I pose the question, why should they? If they are happier being with a member of the same sex, why shouldn't they be? and if it makes people happy why shouldn't people be entitled to the marriage rights of the partner of their choice, regarldess of sex.

If one encourages intolerance or worse yet violence toward gays or its culture, that is not physcially preventing you from doing what you want, then you are a bigot. I believe tolerance of all non-violent dingified beliefs is a good thing. If someone rejects tolerance to a belief system that does not prevent them from doing as they please and allows people to act with the dignity to be with the person they want, you are a bigot.

3.) I don't like the gay culture, allowing gay marriage would only increase its acceptability- This one is pretty easy to solve.

Don't hang out with gays or people in their culture.

I pitty people who would reject a large population of people that can contribute many ideas to human progress, but everyone should be entitled to keep the company that they please.

4.) I dont't want to be hit on by gays. what if gays hit on my child and turn him/her gay- To this first idea. I would like to pose a question. How is this any different then getting hit on by members of the same sex that you are not interested in? No one really desires that either. But we realize others have feelings, and politely turn them down. Why should turning down a gay person's advances be any different. If the gay person pursues after you turn him/her down they are acting immorally and are engaging in harassment which should be illegal (especially sexually). In any event this does not likely change the quanity of the population that is gay. It just allows them to get married and have the rights there of. What is wrong with gays having the right to pursue others? Everyone else is entitled to this right. Just like any heterosexual advance, one tries to avoid rejection. So gays aren't likely to pursue others that they dont think they have a chance with or try to 'convert them'.

Like previously mentioned, Being gay is likely based on genetics. So being hit on is unliekly to change that. But even if you believe people can go either way based on their environment, if you are willing to make your child unhappy, by preventing him/her from being with the person of their affection, you are a bad parent. period.

5.) Gay Marriage devalues the value of straight marriage. I once read someone comparing marriage to the congressional medal of honor (I don't remember who or where, I apologize for not noting you, let me know and I will correct this). If you give the medal to cowards who did nothing you would be devaluing the medal for all the people who were courageous. The same could be argued for marriage. Gay marriage takes away the value from straight marriage. Why not atleast give another term for marriage such as civil union and partners?

In order to make this claim, one needs to hold the claim that gays being married somehow devalues straight marriage. I can not see how this is the case. In order to make this claim, one needs to hold that marriage is definitionally a special thing between a man and a woman. Most likely because of it being natural as discussed in part 1. There really is no reason this has to be this way. I do not think we should let certain people's beliefs prevent others from engaging in activities that indivduals of different genders can engage in. Violation of beliefs which do no directly harm people other than offend their sensibilities are not more important than peoples freedom.

I think it is a freedom all should be entitled to. Being able to marry the one person that you love, regardless of gender. Just like at one time some consdiered it an abomination that interacial marriage was legal. But we as a scoiety relaized our error and over came it.

6. Gay Marriage dehumanizes peoples dignity- I can not see how allowing two people in love to spend their life together is anything but just the opposite of dehumanizing, its humanizing and dignified. It is treating people with the upmost respect when one is able to marry, and have the rights there of, of any person they choose regardless, of race, gender, or any other physical feature other than their minds.

Gay Marriage increases freedom for humanity, does not prevent others from doing as they please, and possibly most importantly it is dignified.

The Freedom-Dignity Standard

When evaluating a philosophy for setting up the most moral human interaction, I believe there are two tools that are generally the most useful. Together I call them the Freedom-Dignity Standard. This is not to say that they are the only things to be considered or should always be weighed, but they are generally found to be useful and relevant. Each moral case or policy should be evaluated and judged on its own merits balancing out the relvant facts, without limiting absolute principles.

The two principles are as follows:

1. The Freedom Principle- [This principle originates from John Stuart Mill] One should be able to do whatever one pleases as long as it does not prevent someone esle from enjoying the same freedom.

2. The Dignity Principle- [This principle origniates from Imannuel Kant, although, it has been used and developed by many philosopher including Mill] As a human, one should be treated with the upmost respect and dignity. This means treating all people as worthy and never dehumanizing them. You, yourself, aren't able to waive this right even if you should do choose.

Every situtation has a different set of facts and values. Through a careful evaluation and by using our experience we should balance these two principles out in deciding the best course of action.

The Freedom Principle is the basis behind liberty, democracy, self-determination, and the 'pursuit of happiness'. It prevents servitude in its many froms. This principle bans people from doing harm to each other. It further bans coercion or being told what to do by others or a government. It protects freedom of speech, belief, and assembly. More than anything else, the principle means that you have the right to determine how your life is to go. No one has the right to coercively decide your life for you.

The Dignity Principle covers areas that the Freedom principle alone can not accomplish. For example, should I have the right to sell myself into slavery? The right to have a duel to the death? Asking homeless poor people to engage in brutal fights for money or food? According to soley the freedom principle, i should have the right to do so, since no one is doing involuntary harm or preventing the course of action that anyone should choose. However, i think most people value a certain unique importance to human life and the mind. There is a certain level of dignity that needs to be maintained, at almost all costs. If there is one thing that seems to be in common in nearly all moral codes is the idea that we should treat our fellow man and ourselves well, with respect and dignity. For example, 'Love thy neighbor, as thyself' would be an old form of this intuitive prinicple.

Together I bind these two principles into the Freedom-Dignity Standard. If it is possible that a course of action can satisfy both of these requirements it generally seems to be a strong moral decision. If these two priniciples conflict, it is important to weigh out the facts and use our experience, to determine what is the best course of action (prima facie ethical obligation) to treat people most human.

Two Decisions

Over the last week the Supreme Court made two decisions of interest to me. The first is a ruling in a 5-3 decision, (Roberts did not participate due to making a ruling in a lower court) in which the court ruled the process that the Bush administration was using for military commissions at Guantanamo is illegal. The second is a decision by the court to stay the removal of a large cross on a public park in San Diego, California.

The decision by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld stated that prisoners could not be held indefinitly without being charged and tried in some court of law. It implied that the classification of 'enemy combatants' to avoid the prisoner of war rights of the Geneva Convention is illegal. The court , via Judge Breyer, also described their faith in people and the democratic process of congress. Stating that congress has the authority to issue special millitary tribunals in dire situations, if it believes that it is the will of the people. The decision primarily stated that in this instance the Bush administration did not have the broad power to suspend trial rights of prisoners and avoid the Genevea Convention. It also affirmed the the Supreme Court's right to judicial review over matters of Presidential v. Supeme Court power.

Although, many believe this is a shocking ruling given the conservative trend in American Politics/Law, I do not think that this is the case. Regardless of politics, it is central to the American Ideology that everyone accused of a crime has the right to a trial to ascertain one's guilt. There are certain practical differences between civilian trials and trials of war, but the spirit of the law is the same. If there is immediate danger from a potential terrorist, no one is saying they should not be held in prison. But, the prisoner must be entitled to be charged with a crime in a timely manner and not be held indfinitely. I don't believe this is a controversial idea to most people and seems to be more about a sensible balance between security and assuring the right of all human beings to a trial.

The other decision was to stay the removal of a large religious symbol from a public park on Mount Soledad in San Diego, California. Mount Soledad is a war memorial created after the Korean War to honor the fallen. The Mountain has a large cross on the peak surrounded by stairs and plaques of fallen soldiers. In 1991, Judge Thompson ruled that the cross violatated the constitutional right to government not supporting religion. Through a series of lengthy legal battles, and several ballot mesaures over the last 17 years, the battle over the cross continues. The court has consistently ruled the cross, on public area, constituted governemnt endrosement of religion and has ordered it to be removed (despite ballot measures trying to sell soley the patch with the cross on it to private ownership to avoid the removal). The Supreme Court previosuly refused to hear the case in 1994. Recently the judge ordered the cross to be removed by August 2nd, 2006 or the city would face a $5,000 per day fine. The cross was scheduled by the city to be removed today (July 5, 2006), but the Supreme Court decided to issue an indefinite stay of the removal, to give time to those defending the cross on public grounds to create a defense.

This is somewhere between an unnecessary delay to a mistake by the court. The cross is a religious symbol on a public war memeorial and I can not see how it is not a government endorsement of religion. If there was a Muslim Crescent, Jewish Star, or Statue of Buddha, at the top of Mount Soledad, it would be fairly easy to spot the government endorsement of religion. A cross, which clearly is a symbol that represents Chistianity, should be treated no differently. Some make the claim that the cross has historical relevance on Mount Soledad and should not be removed on that ground. It is true that there are other memorials of historic relevance that have religious elements that have been deemed legal. But I question what is the historical relvance of a cross on a memorial created in 1954? If someone could present a sensible argument why it has some old historical value, that would be a different issue. The fact of the matter is there is none and supporters of the cross are using this as an excuse to force religion down the throats of others. This is demeaning to all American's intelligence and is heavily unconstitutional. Religion has an important place in America, but not as a government endorsement of religion on public grounds. We should not subject others to our belief system, this is one of the most fundamental ideas in America. It is of paramount importance that we have the right to decide for ourselves. Government should not be in the business of telling people what to think or placing religious symbols that show prefrence and therefore endorsement of what certain people believe on public property. In order to mainitain this idea it is necessary that public places do not have relgious symbols.