What’s Wrong with the World

I saw that interview and I was deeply disappointed at Palin's response. She had the opportunity to say it straight, and she demurred. Palin is supposed to be a maverick. Now she's clearly speaking here on McCain's orders, or from her political instinct, or some combination of the two. The problem, as you, Zippy, and others have pointed out, is that when you say something over and over again, for long enough, you start to believe it yourself. And even if you don't, you do become committed to it. They say you don't change Washington, but Washington changes you. Well, running for president (and let's make no mistake, Palin is running for president) is changing her already.

Palin did not change or soften her position, and that can be known logically as well as empirically. If she had said "only if" she would have been wrong. But she did not say "only if".

Her position has always been clear: she cannot support embryo destructive research period.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/09/10/cnn-s-toobin-palin-very-extreme-embryonic-stem-cell-research

Why did she say it this way this time? Could it have been stronger? Sure it could have, but she was trying to say two things at the same time in the same soundbyte, and they got pushed together verbally. They didn't even get pushed together in an objectively problematic way, which itself should count for something, but they did get pushed together. It is easy to see in an interview how this might happen.

Either she has changed to the "only if" position, or she just could have said it more strongly but has not changed. Given her clear statements and actions in the past, she deserves that we interpret this comment consistent with her other pro-life positions, which, by the way, are unprecedented in their purism in a VP and future presidential candidate.

that , but what she said is not wrong. It would be We sho

pardon the surpus edit text at the bottom :)

I don't think the logical "what the meaning of 'if' is" parsing is particularly plausible here. I think people who haven't seen it should watch the video.

Zippy, like you, I am disappointed that our candidates for office cannot be as precise and clear as John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae. But, alas, that is politics, and we have to advance the common good with what have, both in leadership and citizenry. For this reason, I would not read much into Palin's comments other than she's talking to a particular audience.

For this reason, I would not read much into Palin's comments other than she's talking to a particular audience.

This is a few weeks into Palin's appearance on the national stage. Wait until you see the result of eight years of compromises like this.

And frankly, it seems counterproductive. I wouldn't expect her to plainly call it one of the most heinous forms of murder, the way JPII does. But she could have said that she disagrees with embryonic stem cell research, full stop, and that John McCain has indicated that he thinks it probably isn't necessary given other advances. After all, it is her differences from the John McCain we all know which has energized the base.

Heck, she could probably have said whatever she chose to say. She has the McCain campaign by the cajones right now: it is absolutely dead without her.

Where was the pit bull with lipstick?

It would have been easy enough for her to say, "We should not do this, and there are other options out there." Mind you, all the "personal opinion" stuff would still have been very disturbing. But the difference in conversational implicature between "if" and "and" would have been a fairly big one even in that one line.

In conversation I received the following conjecture: She got what she said there as prep for the interview from her handlers in the McCain campaign. She looked it over hastily and did not see clearly enough the difference between it and statements like, "My policy opinions are such-and-such, but it is John McCain who is running for President, and his policy opinions will inevitably have more relevance for the policy of the administration than those of the Vice President where those differ." Now, that would at least have avoided all the "personal opinion" stuff, which Jeff Culbreath also quotes, and which gives the very unfortunate impression that if she disagrees with John McCain, her opinions in those areas are suddenly purely personal rather than matters where she would actually like to influence policy as a politician. And the suggestion of "and" rather than "if" on the ESCR issue would have made a difference, too. In other words, the suggestion made to me was that she is being massaged by the McCain campaign in a particular direction without even realizing it.

I agree that it could have been said more strongly, but I also maintain that what she said is not objectively wrong. Indeed, the lack of alleged benefit from killing embryos is *a* reason against doing it, it is a reason that all of us and all the groups on our side use all the time in touting adult stem cell research, someone could reasonably believe it is a more convincing reason to the general public, and it just happens to be the reason McCain will use to excuse his flip flop in the right direction on this issue if he flip flops the way Brownback says he will.

It is not implausible to distinguish between if and only if, not because I think she was thinking in symbolic logic terms obviously, but because of all this context that you are ignoring. It is a simple fact that she did not say that it's OK to kill embryos if we think we have no alternative. Even watching the video that's not what she said. Put another way, if today she came out and said she never said that, and that she has always maintained that it is wrong to kill embryos and also that we have alternatives, she would not be wrong and she would not be changing her position.

My point is that her comments, not being objectively wrong, can in their weakness, which I gladly admit, be explained alternatively, not as the winds of change, but as under interview pressure and imperfect wording and desire to emphasize both points. That's where you have to start with Palin. If there are reasonable alternative ways to interpret something, by someone proven to have already clearly stated her position and by taking positions stronger than any VP or Pres nominee has ever taken, we should not jump to the conclusion that she is another betrayer. Instead you are starting with an unwarranted presumption that she is being duped or acting in bad faith.

"After all, it is her differences from the John McCain we all know which has energized the base."

OF course the differences have never been that huge. THat is partly because some conservatives have built up such a cartoon version of McCain over the years they have trouble breaking it down

There are diffences such as no exceptions and against embryotic stem cell research are ones of course. However I do wonder if these positions are what has gotten the base excited

Oh and what is wrong with the ad. I thought we were for STEM CELL research just not Embryonic . IN fact is that not been a line we have been using?

JH is exactly right about the ad. It could have come from the USCCB Pro-Life Office.

On McCain I am more of the mind of Zippy than JH, but my point here is whether to give Palin, as distinct from McCain, a chance, or instead to interpret everything against her.

I'll vote for "stress-phraseology"--the inability to say precisely what you want to say while under duress.

I also note that the McCain list of SCR promises was deliberately vague so that he could play to both sides of the issue.

Cynical, yes. In fact, I'd say disgraceful, except McC's past support of ESCR is a factor.

Most here seem to be working under the assumption that Palin's personal beliefs extend to her political advocacy. The record there isn't so good. She is at heart a libertarian. Any analysis that works under the assumption that she is some sort of traditionalist will inevitably find itself in conflict with reality. Many have seemed to have created a Palin in their own image.

It is not implausible to distinguish between if and only if, not because I think she was thinking in symbolic logic terms obviously, but because of all this context that you are ignoring.

Nobody would ever say, "I think it's wrong to eat children if we have alternatives."

I'm perfectly willing to admit that she said what she said partly under stress. I maintain that part of the stress was coming from the very campaign with which she is working, not just from Gibson. And I don't think she would have made these mistakes a year ago, without that compromising pressure from her own side. And that's what's so disturbing.

Lydia--I understand your point but our side offers other reasons against things like abortion and embryo killing all the time. No one would ever say "We should not eat children because it causes indigestion," but we constantly say we should not commit abortions because it causes emotional scarring to women. We are in the business of offering secondary reasons against the things we oppose, precisely so that we can persuade people to stop these things, because their heinousness under first principles requires that they stop even if for secondary reasons. It's an acceptable practice if we don't deny our first principles, and she didn't.

It is perfectly reasonable to read this interview, not that every word of her her answer was scripted, but that she went into the interview thinking she had two points to make on HESCR, that it's wrong to destroy embryos, and that there are alternatives. The McCain people wanted her not to forget to emphasize the alternatives (not necessarily to change my position but because that's his line and that's an effective way to argue anyway). Emphasizing alternatives is not in fact a change of position. And she did make both points. But her phraseology linked them in an awkward way.

It's not fair to say she has jumped on the children-eating bandwagon.

msb

I think you have a good point about giving Palin the benefit of the doubt.

A few other thoughts.

I understand why McCain and Palin are doing this. THe less the hot button issues are talked about the better chances they win. That is not rock the boat.

Now people might call that cynical but I might add that I guess a lot of Catholic bloggers have followed that tact including me. For many Conservative Catholics that supported McCain views on Immigration Reform and Torture we are not exactly shouting that from the rooftops right now. Why? So we do not alienate our fellow Conservatives many of them Catholics. There was a reason immigration was not mentioned at the convention. I can never forget when the leading Catholic voice at NRO was toying around with glee that perhaps there would be a great divorce on Bush because of his stance on that issue. Despite the fact the Bush has given SOcial COnservatives much of what we want.

I suspect if McCain -Palin started running english ads on Immigration reforms that even some Catholic Social Conservative voices would be yelling to go thrid party.

I use that as a example that sometimes the social conservative base is not quite as reliable as they portray themselves to be on election day.

It would be interesting to see what is going on behind closed doors. The JOb of the VIce President is to support the President. This is the not the 1800's where We have Jefferson as President and his mortal Foe Burr as Vice President.

However I would not be suprised that McCain and Palin would have a understanding that in case of a tie in the Senate she could vote her views on one or two issues. I suspect that might be ANWAR and the ESCR issues. It would be a interestign question to asl

Zippy said:

This is a few weeks into Palin's appearance on the national stage. Wait until you see the result of eight years of compromises like this.

And an Obaman Administration is NOT a compromise to this Nation?

Wait until we've had 4 or even 8 years of Obama -- not only will Conservatism itself be compromised but also what little left of American morals!

The Pro-Abortion policies of Obama will make abortion the normative for Americans!

Lydia wrote:

And I don't think she would have made these mistakes a year ago, without that compromising pressure from her own side.

In point of fact she actually didn't make those 'mistakes' in a 2006 gubernatorial debate, when she said:

"With a pro-life position, and it's interesting that so many questions revolve around this centeredness I have for respecting life, and the potential of every human life, but no, stem-cell research would ultimately end in the destruction of life. I couldn't support it."

Aristocles:
This thread is not about comparisons to Obama, and I am not going to let you make it about that. Everyone should by now know that I detest what Obama stands for, and think that only the morally deranged could possibly talk themselves into supporting him. That doesn't excuse or minimize the gravity of McCain's commitment to cannibalizing children.

JH, if we're going to talk strategy, I'll tell it to you straight: That interview _is_ rocking the boat. As Zippy says, Palin is the great hope of the McCain nomination, and she could have said what she wanted. By speaking in this way she is losing conservative votes (not mine, but others') for McCain that had been swinging their way in the hope that she would influence McCain rather than vice versa. She is, in fact, squandering part of the very strategic advantage that she brought to the campaign.

As for their having a back-room deal that she can vote her principles (if it should come up, which it probably won't) on issues where they disagree, I think this interview also lowers the odds of that. Her whole statement that these are just her personal opinions and her linking that with the policy of the administration seem to me evidence that if it ever came to it, she wd. consider it her job to "support the president" with her tie-breaking vote. No, that's not something she's saying outright, and no, it isn't an absolutely decisive argument that she would do that. But it is evidence in that direction, evidence that she is preparing herself to push down her own policy opinions wherever she differs from McCain.

Zippy,

Out of respect for you, I shall cease along those lines of inquiry.

On the more substantive point though, has it ever crossed your mind that perhaps the Palin statement(s) is merely reflective of Alito's method back in his confirmation hearing days when he was attempting to garner the most support by making statements that were appealing to the widest possible audience coming from both sides of the aisle?

I can assure you that Alito himself is still Pro-Life (as the victory he helped win in PBA would indicate) in spite of those statements he had made back then when he was courting support from the opposite crowd.

As much as I'd like to see Sarah Palin become the champion of conservative causes for the next 25 years I think we need to recognize her limitations. She is a Journalism/Communications major and the product of a religious sect with virtually no intellectual or moral tradition. She may be a mouthpiece for traditional values but she will not be the brain. Ronald Regan, by comparison, was no intellectual, but he was a deeply thoughtful man as evidenced by his letters, writings, and years of leadership for the Screen Actors Guild and General Electric. George Bush is a notoriously incurious individual who, nonetheless, has been buoyed by a cadre of Catholic speechwriters and advisers.

Palin displays a politician's eagerness to accommodate her speech to her audience. Whether she will made the more serious moral concessions (e.g.embryonic stem cell research) of John McCain remains to be seen. As McCain demonstrates, it is one thing for a politician to admire Ronald Regan, and it is another to think and act like him. Her highly fideistic pedigree is not encouraging.

Aristocles: I don't know enough about the Alito hearings to characterize them, but I can tell you in general that I'm against lying to garner votes, and doing so would be the diametric opposite of the straight-talking straight-shooting hockey mom persona which is precisely what has gotten the Republican base excited.

Zippy,

"...but I can tell you in general that I'm against lying to garner votes..."

I'm not so sure that you can characterize it as outright lying -- it would have to depend on what was actually said by the candidate; that is, the particulars in the statement.

I'm sure that you're being a successful entrepreneur yourself, you more than anybody else have a greater appreciation for such particulars.

In any case, in an election, one would even have to win votes from the "other" crowd.

Making statements that appeal to such a crowd is quite different than vowing to serve the needs of that crowd.

Simply put, I would think that Palin would remain Pro-Life even after she had successfully obtained the votes of that other crowd, especially since the majority of her own constituency is "Pro-Life"; a constituency I'm sure she would be much, much more beholden to in contrast.

Aristocles, there's a big difference between appealling to the left by saying, for example (if you believe it), "I support more government programs to help families who have children with disabilities" and saying, "I support stem-cell research," leaving it deliberately ambiguous as between your supporting an abomination and a legitimate type of research.

In other words, I reject entirely the notion of appealing to "their" side by playing verbal games that make it look like maybe you believe something _very seriously evil_ in the hopes that this will get you votes from the people who also believe that evil thing.

Btw, all, Jeff Culbreath makes an excellent point, indeed, it seems to me an unanswerable point, over on Zippy's blog: The stem-cell research ad says McCain & Palin support "real change" and then starts talking about stem-cell research. But the Bush admin. already funds adult stem-cell research. This ad can be about "change" only if we're talking about ESCR.

Lydia,

Such a statement as the former wouldn't be "appealing" to the 'other' party; however, the latter statement, which you yourself desribed as "deliberately ambiguous", is.

That ambiguity, you will note by your own statement, does not POSITIVELY state a support for ESCR.

I used the example I did, Aristocles, because it used to be the case that a difference between liberals and conservatives was that the former were more supportive of big-government programs, especially those to help the underdog, than the latter. In fact, that used to be and to some extent still is a point of pride on the part of the left. It is sometimes (all the time) forgotten that many social conservatives are also fiscal and small-government conservatives as far as their preferences and that the fact that they never make a fuss when their candidates institute or support massive government programs to "help" people *is* a form of willingness to compromise and to let their candidates "reach out" to the "other side," *does* indicate their making a distinction among issues, and *should* be counted as evidence of their flexibility. But it never is.

Lydia: There's a difference between making a statement that ostensibly seems to support ESCR in order to win the votes of the Pro-ESCR crowd and one that conspicuously endorses such support to the extent that such measures are positively guaranteed by the candidate.

That is a far cry from Obama's: "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

Well, Aristocles, I think it's pretty despicable to _seem_ to endorse human cannibalism in order to gain the votes of the pro-cannibalism crowd. Really bad. No comparisons can make it anything better than really, really bad. I'd like to think that Sarah Palin doesn't know about this recent ad, because that's sure what the ad sounds like.

Lydia:

"Well, Aristocles, I think it's pretty despicable to _seem_ to endorse human cannibalism..."

The question is did it really endorse "human cannibalism" in the first place?

You can't pronounce somebody guilty when, in fact, the evidence itself has been called "ambiguous".

Or do we now pronounce folks these days as "guilty" unless proven innocent regardless of the evidence in question?

Are we really going to build a culture of life based on sneaky misleading promises like this?

Zippy et al,

FWIW, Dr. Liccione has provided rebuttal to your assertion that a Vote for McCain is a Vote for a "Human Cannibal":

LINK:
Why a vote for McCain isn't a vote for cannibalism

a statement that ostensibly seems to support

I emphasized seems, because I took that to be your point. Face it, Aristocles, _you_ are legitimating a strategy of "appealing to the other side" which, as I understand you, _cannot work_ unless one seems to endorse something bad. That's _why_ it appeals to the other side. You have made it clear that you understand that yourself. That's slimy. I don't say Palin is slimy. I say the McCain campaign is slimy for putting out this ad, and Palin is being sucked into those tactics.

Say you were in state that funds embryo-killing, and you were trying to overturn the funding with your own cloning ban plus funding for reprogrammed and other adult cells. Could you run ads trying to convince, not leftists, but the general public, who are confused on the issue--confused by propoganda of the other side--could you run ads to convince them that voting yes on your law is really a vote FOR "stem cell research" of the type that will *really* work in finding cures? Could you omit from this ad any discussion about embryo killing, if it happens to be a turnoff to the general public, who first want to know what will work, and if it is a distraction to drilling home the fact that your amendment is not anti-research or anti-cure, a point that is necessary before people will even listen to you? Could you characterize your campaign in those terms so as to win?

I say you could, and that it would not be really, really bad to do so.

msb -- excellent!

Could you run ads trying to convince, not leftists, but the general public, who are confused on the issue--confused by propoganda of the other side--could you run ads to convince them that voting yes on your law is really a vote FOR "stem cell research" of the type that will *really* work in finding cures? Could you omit from this ad any discussion about embryo killing, if it happens to be a turnoff to the general public, who first want to know what will work, and if it is a distraction to drilling home the fact that your amendment is not anti-research or anti-cure, a point that is necessary before people will even listen to you? Could you characterize your campaign in those terms so as to win?

I say you could, and that it would not be really, really bad to do so.

I was thinking along the same lines where the Candidate guarantees:
- Stem cell research to unlock the mystery of cancer, diabetes, heart disease.
- Stem cell research to help free families from the fear and devastation of illness.
- Stem cell research to help doctors repair spinal cord damage, knee injuries, serious burns.
- Stem cell research to help stroke victims.

However, the Punchline isn't delivered until after that Candidate wins the election and says:

"...Oh, by the say: These are all the things Adult Stem Cell research will do for you and I will be supporting projects that will seek greater exploration of ASCR!"

Since most folks are, at this point, convinced of the Promise of ASCR; I would doubt that had a Candidate based his campaign on such, he would be successful in obtaining votes from that crowd.

Corrigendum:

"Since most folks are[n't], at this point, convinced of the Promise of ASCR..."

"...Oh, by the say: These are all the things Adult Stem Cell research will do for you and I will be supporting projects that will seek greater exploration of ASCR!"

Yup, people will love that. And the next pro-life candidate who comes down the pike will be sure to receive a warm greeting, and have his/her statements given the benefit of the doubt after this little bait-and-switch act.

It's our job to help create a culture that is receptive to pro-life arguments, not to candy coat them to trick people into eating them.

It's depressing to me that this is even controversial.

First of all, Aristocles, in that case the "folks" are really misinformed (and apparently accepting deliberate misinformation), because the "promise" of ASCR is *vastly* greater than that of ESCR.

But more importantly, let me emphasize yet again what Jeff Culbreath said: This ad wouldn't be about change if it weren't taken to be about ESCR, specifically. The present administration already funds ASCR. That's just a knock-down point.

Now, msb, you could just run the ad sticking in the term "adult" somewhere in there. Moreover, please note that in the case you talk about, the law in question is a change _away from_ cloning and ESCR, because it includes a cloning ban. Whereas here, we're just being told to vote McCain-Palin, because they'll bring "real change" by pushing ambiguously-specified "stem-cell research" where the _only change possible_ is a change in the _wrong_ direction. How hard is that to see?

Please guys, let's not fool ourselves. Aristocles already told us that we're trying to convince the "other side" by being deliberately ambiguous. Right. In other words, the ad is trying to convince people who support ESCR, specifically, by holding out a hope to them that McCain will fund ESCR. This is really, really bad. In fact, it's really bad even if he doesn't do it.

JohnMcG:

During the Valerian Persecution, was Saint Lawrence "slimy" for promising to deliver the Treasures of the Church to the Prefect, only to have presented to the Prefect the Poor of the Church whom, when upon presenting them, said about them ‘These are the treasure of the Church.’?

Lydia,

"First of all, Aristocles, in that case the "folks" are really misinformed (and apparently accepting deliberate misinformation), because the "promise" of ASCR is *vastly* greater than that of ESCR."

But that's just it -- they would be compaigning on a premise that those folks DO NOT accept.

"by pushing ambiguously-specified 'stem-cell research'"

Again, you've described it as being 'ambiguous'; yet, you have no qualms about condemning folks as utterly guilty by saying, on the other hand, that they unequivocally supported ESCR by that "ambiguous" statement.

Lydia, I disagree on the change point. First of all change is a throw-away slogan tacked on to everything he says even if it isn't all that much change. Second and relatedly, cures that we don't have yet are change, even if we are already on the way to get them. Thirdly, there could be *more* funding of reprogrammed cells, in the *new* promising strains of that research, and it could be *more* enthusiastic regarding non-embryo research. Fourthly, Bush funded some ESCR, on already created lines. That could change.

The ad isn't about "change"--it's about SCR without specification. Our side could run that ad, to drive home the point that we are pro-SCR and pro-cures. Our side invented those talking points, and they don't always put "adult" up front.

So when Joe Biden said, "If you care so much about developmentmentally disabled kids, why don't you support stem cell research?" we should have given him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he was referring to non-embryonic stem cell research?

Or do we use the brains in our heads, and assume that politicians have brains in their heads, and know what they're saying, and know what their audiences will hear?

JohnMcG,

In other words, objectively speaking, St. Lawrence was a liar?

Which do you think is more true?

* The poor are the treasures of the Church.
* "Stem cell research," in the context of this political campaign, refers to non-embryo destructive research.

Ahem:

The ad does not specifically refer to embryonic research, which is opposed by most politicians and activists who, like McCain, do not support abortion rights.

The omission is not a signal that McCain is backing away from his record in favor of embryonic stem cell research, spokesman Brian Rogers said.

“Clearly, John McCain supports it,” he said, emphasizing that the ad is intended to refer to all forms of stem cell research, including experiments using human embryos and those using cells from adults.

Wow.

So whaddaya know. Following the evidence _does_ have a tendency to lead to truth.

Zippy and Lydia:

Palin rejects ESCR without the "if" in an immediate follow-up by Gibson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQWCT--UOYY&feature=related

(at 1:45 and following)

Zippy I respectfully suggest that you have to update this post because you have partially quoted her to make it look like she dumbed down her position, and complained that she did not reject ESCR squarely as she had in the past, when in fact she did. You and the rest of us were looking at an excerpt and not the full transcript.

Palin is 100% pro-life. It's unprecedented. She deserves a lot more from us than not quoting her fully.

... when in fact she did.

No, she didn't. She and the McCain web site are both on record as being against creating embryos for the purpose of research -- against embryo farms. And that is what she says in the interview. Are you unaware that millions of 'leftover' IVF emryos are in storage and are often donated for research purposes? Their ad, and the spokesman's follow-up, assure us that McCain-Palin will be actively funding embryo destructive reasearch.

Which is to say, medical cannibalism.

I'm sitting here listening to crickets chirping waiting for a, "Gee, I was so wrong" from the commentators in this thread who, over a period of hours, tried to say that that McCain-Palin ad _didn't_ amount to an endorsement of ESCR who have now been decisively refuted by an official spokesman for the McCain campaign itself. The McCain campaign was so far from trying to hide this fact that they had a spokesman go _out of his way_ to reassure supporters of ESCR that McCain's position in support of it hasn't changed.

C'mon guys. Be men. You were wrong. Say it.

Zippy:

"Creating an embryo and then destroying it, is, that is not something that personally I support."

Not "for research," just creating. It's what she said.

And as you quote her in 2006:

"stem-cell research would ultimately end in the destruction of life. I couldn't support it"

Consistent, and 100% pro-life.

You are grasping to interpret her as supporting ESCR, when every time she has been asked she has opposed it. You have still not corrected this post even though you now know that your partial quote, you gotcha "if" quote, is incomplete precisely on the "if" qualification that you now want to stress. Moreover, Mark Shea has cited this post and passed on your misleadingly partial quote and you still haven't corrected or updated it.

Again, she says she is against embryo farms which create embryos and destroy them for research purposes. She says nothing about destroying already existing IVF embryos (of which there are millions) for research purposes; though the advertisement with her name on it, and an official spokesman of the McCain campaign, stick a fork in that one.

Like Lydia, I'm hearing cricket chirps where I ought to be hearing admissions that you were wrong.

Lydia--for my part I agree that McCain and his position on ESCR is bad. My own point about that ad is that in itself it is not problematic. It doesn't help for you to explain to McCain defenders why he is bad if you use a weak example like this. Others here have gone farther to defend McCain, and I did not do so. It's still true that even with his staffer's qualification, the ad itself says what it says, and if in 2009 he refuses to fund ECHR he will not need to repudiate this ad to do so.

But grant all your assumptions about McCain, and consider them reasonable. My position is pro-Palin, not pro-McCain, and in addition I think her on the ticket gives a proportionate reason to vote for the ticket precisely and reasonably as not primarily a vote for McCain. If McCain weren't a supporter of murder or child eating or whatever you want to call it he wouldn't need a proportionate reason. But he does need one.

The underlying problem is that Zippy is rejecting, unreasonably as far as I've been able to elicit, the application to this situation of Cardinal Ratzinger's clear statement that we can vote for an abortion supporter as material cooperation if we have a proportionate reason. All of the rationales he has given for rejecting that analysis apply to a vote for any abortion supporter, and thus render the statement meaningless.

Lydia,

If your System of Justice is such that a Presumption of Guilt is preferred rather than that Of Innocence; then, such apologies are owed to you that one did not assume folks "Guilty" upon evidence of a mere statement that was, in fact, repeatedly described by certain folks themselves as being "ambiguous".

If that is "Justice" for you; so be it.

Yet, what Horrors befall the Innocent under such an egregiously Tyrannical system that would render the Nation itself a Totalitarian state had all anyone to do was condemn folks by mere accusation alone and, henceforth, a "Guilty" verdict would attach!

The underlying problem is that Zippy is rejecting, ... that we can vote for an abortion supporter as material cooperation if we have a proportionate reason.

Now you are both attempting to change the subject and falsely characterizing what I've said. When I say that you don't have a proportionate reason, that isn't a rejection of the principle that you could do it if you did have a proportionate reason.

How about just admitting that you were wrong about the ad?

My own point about that ad is that in itself it is not problematic.

MSB, the McCain campaign sent out its staffer to give an interpretation of the ad. What more do you want? He says explicitly that the ad is intended to refer to all forms of stem cell research, including ESCR. They aren't even playing bait and switch. They're saying outright, through the campaign's official spokesman, the day the ad comes out, that this ad means that John McCain will continue to support ESCR as President. How much clearer than that does it have to get? You sat there and said that this wasn't what "change" meant and so forth, and then, what?, three hours later, here comes this Hill story. You'd better bet your boots he'd have to repudiate it if he threatened to veto an ESCR funding bill, as Bush has done. You think that official campaign interpreter was some sort of wild guy, acting on his own initiative? What are official spokesmen's interpretations of ads on the day they come out for? I mean, they haven't even kept themselves plausible deniability. Apparently they think they don't need it. Evidently they think the conservative base is so fired-up about Palin they won't notice or won't care. Maybe they are right, heaven help us.

Lydia--I'm not claiming that McCain is anti-ESCR. I'm not saying anything good about him at all, except that he picked Palin. I'm also not claiming that ad can't include ESCR. Others can respond to those charges. I'm saying that the ad by its own language need not include ESCR. I would also not put it past McCain to later claim that this ad did not require him to fund ESCR. And I would not put it past him to later fund ESCR. Reahabilitating McCain has never been my project.

There are two distinct issues in this post. One: are Palin's comments wrong or even a compromise on ESCR. They are not, and Zippy has refused to correct his misleading partial quote which is spreading across the Catholic blogosphere. Two: is the ad pro-ESCR. By its own language it is not. Doerflinger could have written a nearly identical ad. Only if you impose on it McCain's past position and his staffer's comment does it become pro-ESCR.

msb,

But we are not offered the opportunity to vote for Sarah Palin with no strings attaches, we are offered the opportunity to vote for Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate. Early evidence seems to indicate that there is a considerable difference between the two.

I come back to the question of whether having Palin serves as John McCain's VP for four or eight years is in the best interests of either her or the causes she champions. It doesn't look like it, thought there are other possibilities.

Only if you impose on it McCain's past position and his staffer's comment does it become pro-ESCR.

No, all it takes is what politicians generally mean by "stem cell research" in the context of a political campaign.

As mentioned, there was little doubt what Joe Biden meant last week.

John--I agree we can't yet vote for her no strings attached. My position is that her presence dimisishes the strings to the level of remote material cooperation that can be justified by proportionate reason, here the reason being her eventual rise to the presidency and influence in the administration, as well as the defeat of Obama.

It also continues the precedent that pro-lifers are willing to sell out embryos as long as the Republicans make nice gestures that make us think they care.

They are not, and Zippy has refused to correct his misleading partial quote which is spreading across the Catholic blogosphere.

The earth trembles at the power of Zippy.

John--yes that is what makes it cooperation in evil. The question is whether it can be remote, material, and proportionately justified.

If you're trying to figure out if the ad is promoting ESCR or ASCR, the cures listed in the ad are the same list of current clinical uses of umbilical, placental and other adult stem cells for the successful treatment of the following diseases:

Alzheimer's
Autism
Autoimmune diseases
Anemias
Bone and cartilage deformities
Burns
Cancer (brain, breast, ovarian, renal cell, melanoma, leukemia, and other types)
Cerebral palsy
Corneal scaring
Crone's disease
Diabetes
Heart disease
Immunodeficiencies
Repair of cardiac tissue after heart attack (please see separate section, below)
Leukemias
Lymphomas
Melanoma
Multiple sclerosis
Multiple myelomas
Muscular dystrophy
Neural blastoma
Osteoarthritis
Paralysis
Parkinson's Disease
Rheumatoid arthritis
Scleroderma
Scleromixadema
Spinal chord damage
Stroke
Systemic lupus
Tendonitis

http://www.stemcellsabroad.com/Diseases%20Successfully%20Treated%20With%20Stem%20Cells.htm

We all know there has been no success with ESCR, no treatments and very little prospect for any real results. We know that, Palin knows that, and McCain now knows that. It doesn't make any sense to pretend that they are promoting ESCR as opposed to these other more ethical, moral, and proven forms of stem cell therapies.

Er, that's all very well, h-l-l, and quite true, but did you read the whole thread? The McCain campaign explicitly says all forms of research are intended by the ad. This is about as close as we cd. ask for to a campaign promise of expanding federal funding to ESCR. The failure of ESCR hasn't deterred its proponents.

Dr. Liccione has provided rebuttal to your assertion that a Vote for McCain is a Vote for a "Human Cannibal":

I think his argument should be read as "A vote for McCain is not

necessarily

Zippy:

"Are you unaware that millions of 'leftover' IVF emryos are in storage and are often donated for research purposes?"

Let me preface my question by saying at the onset that I do not endorse the use of such "left-over" embryos for ESCR; however, I am rather curious --

What do you propose we do with these millions of embryos?

What do you propose we do with these millions of embryos?

I don't know. I've met a leftover embryo in person before, though she was a bit older than the embryo stage at the time, which is at least suggestive of the kinds of things which can be done.

But not knowing what we ought to do in no way even hints at the beginning of a possible conjecture over a potential conundrum about cannibalizing them for medical research. I don't know what we should do about dying people in Africa, but I know we shouldn't eat them.

Zippy,

But not knowing what we ought to do in no way even hints at the beginning of a possible conjecture over a potential conundrum about cannibalizing them for medical research.

I believe I made that clear by my own preface; I was merely interested in what you propose we do with these in case you actually had such proposal.

What is clear though (which is something everybody seems to be avoiding or, at the very least, overlooking from both ends) is that whatever we aim to do with these will mean their Murder.

What is clear though (which is something everybody seems to be avoiding or, at the very least, overlooking from both ends) is that whatever we aim to do with these will mean their Murder.

Bull. I told you, I've actually met a leftover IVF embryo. She was adopted, implanted, and is now alive and walking among us; a beautiful little girl. There may be moral issues involved here, and I haven't thought through every detail of embryo adoption. But the notion that murdering leftover embryos is inevitable is a falsehood from the pit of Hell.

A few weeks ago I heard Maureen Condic speak. I forget what question prompted this remark, but apropos of embryo-killing research, she said, "You know, we Americans hate waste. I think what's driving a lot of this is a feeling on the part of Americans that frozen embryos are going to waste when they could be used to bring cures for disease." Needless to say, she was _not_ approving of this aspect of Americans' hatred of waste. I thought it was a very shrewd remark.

Zippy,

Look, leaving empryos basically 'refrigerated' for their life itself can lead to its murder (i.e., indefinite storage eventually leads to degradation).

In practical terms, if you were to implant the millions of embryos into folks; sure.

Other than that, I don't see any other solution that would rescue them from an inevitable fate such as that.

Lydia,

Did you not even pay attention to my preface and the fact that I consider it morally objectionable to utilize such embryos for ESCR? Or do you plan to engage again in deliberate mischaracterization as before?

What I'm more interested in is the subject on what to do morally with millions of these embryos.

Leaving them refrigerated indefinitely itself could only mean their murder.

Other than that, I don't see any other solution that would rescue them from an inevitable fate such as that.

Are you saying that because you want to find a solution, or are you saying it because you think it in some way colors the moral decision to cannibalize them?

Leaving them refrigerated indefinitely itself could only mean their murder.

That is a very sloppy way to put it.

If a bunch of men are trapped in a coal mine, we should try to rescue them. Being unable to do so is not murdering them. If they were trapped in that coal mine on purpose by someone, that someone is guilty of either attempted murder (if we do manage to rescue them) or murder (if we don't).

And if someone else comes along while those men are still alive and trapped and pumps some kind of fatal poisonous chemicals into the mine in order to collect medical data, then that someone else is guilty of murder.

So again what, other than a red herring as rhetorical cover for medical cannibals, is your point?

Zippy,

Are you saying that because you want to find a solution, or are you saying it because you think it in some way colors the moral decision to cannibalize them?

If I were as charitable to you as you were here, I would've, in like charity, raised the concern:

Could you possibly be using the ESCR issue all along as merely moral cover for your paleo-conservative end to the extent of manipulatively binding the conscience of certain groups of (sadly) impressionable Catholics to an opinion you have deliberately presented as having some form of infallibility by rendering unto them a seemingly authoritative gloss; a certain manner of authority, by the way, the Pope himself dares not assume?

Yet, notice I had given you the benefit of the doubt and did not raise such questions because I felt you were of genuine intention, a view which I continue to hold even now.

If a bunch of men are trapped in a coal mine, we should try to rescue them.

That analogy only applies if there were rescue efforts in progress.

Leaving men trapped in a coal for an indefinite period of time means their deaths, even if you decided to rescue them years later. Consequently, deciding not to rescue them in the period of time when such rescue was possible is an act not entirely unlike that of murder.

For instance, if you were trapped in such a situation and I decided not to rescue you in the short amount of time you had to live, would I not be guilty of murder?

Now, I am sure that you are well aware of the basic principles of biology and the degree of degradation that occurs over time during periods of long storage that results in a similar fate unless actions are taken to prevent their eventual deaths.

Deaths that may very well mean the murder of those persons for failure to save these from such a fate.

I believe embryo adoption to be moral. Of course, only a few embryos, proportionally speaking, will be adopted, and many of those will die in the attempt to rescue them--in the process of defrosting or by implantation failure.

But refraining from actively killing a person in a situation where he will eventually perish of natural causes is never the same thing as murdering him, in any event, Aristocles, so I wish you'd stop talking like it is.

Suppose that there were some bizarre situation where the only choices were to do something intrinsically immoral to try to rescue a person, passively refraining from rescuing him, in which case he would eventually die, and doing some other intrinsically immmoral thing _to_ him. Obviously, in that case, option B is the only moral option. There are no real ethical dilemmas. None. And that must be the position on which people take their stand if they do believe embryo adoption to be intrinsically immoral.

I do not myself believe that, however, as I said.

And since you say you think ESCR is evil, anyway, Aristocles, I'm with Zippy on the question: Why even bring the question up here? Is it supposed to have some relevance to the political issue? Any relevance at all?

Lydia,

"I believe embryo adoption to be moral. Of course, only a few embryos, proportionally speaking, will be adopted, and many of those will die in the attempt to rescue them--in the process of defrosting or by implantation failure."

This is certainly a morally acceptable course of action.

Incidentally, if it needs be said, I wouldn't consider any such failures that might likely result as something even approaching "murder"; indeed, they are more likened to the "miscarriage" type, if anything else, that happens during the natural process.

Simply put, I just believe unless we start "dignifying" these embryos as persons by endeavoring to explore solutions in this manner, folks will continue to look to them as nothing but biological specimens.

Lydia:

But refraining from actively killing a person in a situation where he will eventually perish of natural causes is never the same thing as murdering him, in any event, Aristocles, so I wish you'd stop talking like it is.

Aristocles:

Simply put, I just believe unless we start "dignifying" these embryos as persons by endeavoring to explore solutions in this manner, folks will continue to look to them as nothing but biological specimens.

The problem is that it is an irrelevant straw man. Pro-lifers are trying to find ways to help. Witness the actual 'leftover embryo' I've personally met. And even if pro-lifers weren't trying to help, THAT WOULD NOT EXCUSE THE MURDERERS. Making murder (especially murder of one of the worst and most heinous kinds) all 'about' people who supposedly aren't doing enough to help is Oprathetic modernity at its worst.

Zippy,

"That sounds an awful lot like what abortion supporters say about pro-lifers: the trope, and you've all heard it, that pro-lifers don't act like abortion is really murder, because if they did they would do more radical things to help the victims."

What it SOUNDS LIKE to you is FAR from my intention.

How can you even have interpreted my comments:

"Simply put, I just believe unless we start "dignifying" these embryos as persons by endeavoring to explore solutions in this manner, folks will continue to look to them as nothing but biological specimens."

...as being nothing but an abort-supporter trope.

"And even if pro-lifers weren't trying to help, THAT WOULD NOT EXCUSE THE MURDERERS."

And where, exactly, did I say that it would or that ESCR is justifiable?

Did I not reiterate time & again that ESCR is morally objectionable and that embryos are, in fact, 'persons'; which, indeed, was the very point I kept trying to make in my comments?

If you can't distinguish what I was actually saying without imposing on it your prejudicial gloss, then forget about it.

The fact of the matter is that the more embryos are objectified as NOTHING OTHER THAN PERSONS, the more likely they'll be treated as such!

You need to convince people who see embryos as nothing other than biological specimens to get them to look at these as actual persons.

You can't do so with a callous (not to mention, needlessly sarcastic) attitude as that which deliberately neglects the importance of such measures!

You need to convince people who see embryos as nothing other than biological specimens to get them to look at these as actual persons.

You can't do so...etc.

But you can by voting for McCain, who sees them "as nothing other than biological specimens"?

kwql pwqilcjz jevwm rgjamiwos lhwsoqdj mctsjahk tjal