I wonder if Bush really know what a stem cell is? (sorry, but I couldn;t
resist...)
JM
G. Marc Turner wrote:
Normally, I'd just stay quiet on all this, but something about today
just makes me want to play devil's advocate or something...
Lavin wrote:
"I was always under the impression that psychologists were neutral."
Black earlier wrote (Sorry Stephen but your earlier comment was the
easiest to get):
"I wonder how Bush et al view the harm reduction approach. I'd imagine
they welcome it as
much as they do sex education and the teaching of evolution in
schools, the use of
condoms to prevent AIDS, and stem-cell research. "
Yep, I can see how one might take that as a neutral political
statement... and actually, as I re-read it, is probably one of the
more neutral comments I've seen about Bush on this list :)
And in further response to Black's comments...
The real push of many on the right (and middle) is to include
abstinence in sex education courses, to teach students about the
dangers of STDS, AIDS, etc., and to discourage teen pregnancy. They
feel it inappropriate to teach 6th graders how to have better sex and
portray sex as having no consequences and something they should all
rush out and do. Admittedly some want to go further and eliminate it
completely, but they are not necessarily representative of the whole.
As for the teaching of evolution in schools... well... uh... to quote
Black again, "It's understandable when someone goes off the deep end
on one topic to devalue their view on another, but not logical." So,
I'll just have to let evolution be Bush's deep end :) I don't think
even I can help him out on that one...
Bush, and the right, as far as I know have no opposition to the use of
condoms to prevent AIDS, but maybe I missed a policy statement
somewhere. They do take issue with giving condoms to 6th graders
because "kids are going to have sex anyway" as being the best
approach, but it has nothing to do directly with AIDS. Anyway, this is
probably the closest in nature to the harm reduction argument...
they're going to do it anyway, so might as well keep them safe while
doing it. And, to agree with Satel's op-ed piece, this does often
ignore the issue of whether or not the behavior should be viewed as
acceptable and encouraged in either an explicit or implicit manner.
Are some kids going to have sex at very young ages? Yes, probably so.
Is it right? That's a moral call and I tend to say no when the kids
are as young as they too often are. Do the actions we take to
"protect" those who have sex at such a young age encourage others in
the same age range to have sex as well? Based on the portrayal of
things in the media and pop-culture today, yes... if you believe the
media's portrayal, just about every 14yr old girl is going to parties
with the intent of engaging in group sex... now, the accuracy of this
portrayal of today's youth is probably more questionable than many
realize, but I do think it helps shed light on why some people react
as strongly as they do when combined with the ideas of "harm
reduction" which seem to encourage the behavior by making it safe and
free from damaging consequences. (Another example would be parents who
allow kids to drink at parties while at home because "they're going to
drink anyway, and at least this way I know they are safe"... and make
that decision not only for their own child, but for all the other
children at the party as well.)
And stem-cell research... Bush does not oppose stem-cell research,
despite media claims to the contrary. He has actually increased
funding for stem-cell research while in office. What he opposes is the
harvesting of stem-cells from aborted fetuses and embryos. He views
life as beginning at conception, and hence abortion, to him, is
equivalent of murder. Just as the pregnant mother who has a
miscarriage has lost a "baby" and not just a mass of cells, he views
the embryo as a "child" that deserves federal protection from harm
caused by research.... or at least opposes the use of federal tax
dollars to support such research though it could be privately funded.
In some ways, to harvest the stem-cells from this research
participant, you have to kill the participant. I don't think any IRB
would go for that... but the question is whether or not the fetus
counts as a research participant. He encourages research into the use
of adult stem-cells, but is opposed to the creation of new lines of
embryonic stem-cells for research since creation of those lines
requires an embryo to be destroyed. Admittedly there is some
inconsistency with regards to some proposed legislation allowing the
use of embryos which would otherwise be discarded to create the new
lines, but that's an issue which I think has not fully been discussed
and thought through yet by the administration since it could give them
an "out" if properly presented and not appear inconsistent with prior
statements. Also, when asked about stem-cell research, people on the
right often respond "There has been no success with the use of
embryonic stem-cells, but there have been promising results from
research using adult stem-cells. So, that is where research needs to
focus." People on the left tend to respond "If Bush would allow
embryonic stem-cell research, people like Christopher Reeve would be
able to get up out of the wheel chairs and walk again." Now, one of
these sounds more logical and rational, while one sounds much more
like a blatant plea to emotion... I'll leave it to you to decide which
is which and why one might be more convincing to the general public
than another...
Okay... that's end of my devil's advocate mode for the day... and
maybe I've distracted people enough so that discussion about plain
text/html won't come back again today :)
=============================================
G. Marc Turner, PhD, MEd, Network+, MCP
Lecturer & Technology Coordinator
Department of Psychology
Texas State University-San Marcos
San Marcos, TX 78666
phone: (512)245-2526
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
