The cartoon is very funny and spot-on, but he won't become a conservative poster child anytime soon. He has a liberal bent overall in my estimation, and has written many comics that ridicule Christianity and religion in general.
I never said that "Dilbert" was a "conservative" or "liberal" comic - all I am saying is that the left will now be looking more for these kinds of freedom of expression and try to put the kabash on them just like they're trying to do now with Fox News. I'd bet a steak dinner on it!
Now, if you really want a left-wing, liberal "comic" - and I use that term loosely - "Doonesbury" fits that description to a tee!
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
Ridiculing any religion is not good. But the fact that Scott Adams is not conservative puts this criticism in the same category as that of Alexander Cockburn's marvelous attack on AGW - neither can be brainlessly dismissed as the knee-jerk anti-liberal commentary of a right winger.
All of his political writings are worth a look, but conservatives who wish to actually make logical points with Greens might wish to look at my late friend Harry's answers to their values phrased as questions. This is the short version, but I encourage a look at the full versions on the main link, too. Harry also had better than usual (I'm possibly damning him with faint praise, considering recent mindlessness I've seen here) ideas about abortion. JMR
I hate replies to myself, but if you want to change minds on an issue, I really encourage looking at Harry's ideas, and especially his responses to the Greens. And this URL is one I always give to vegetarians I meet. I really miss Harry, his simple and clear writing style only barely betrays the wonderful friend underneath. When he died of cancer, Harry gave his body to science, which is typical of his examples in life -- fighting the good fight even in death. JMR
Your friend sounds like a nice man and a wonderful friend to you.
His writings mix politics with a variety of topics including religion and science. His first statement seems the essential Libertarian take on the individual, but beyond that point, there are a few gaps in his writings that, unfortunatley, compromise the message. Tyring to keep this as secular as possible:
1) "From a historical standpoint it is a very new perspective that life begins at conception. Traditionally life begins and ends with the beginning and ending of breath. The ideas of breath and spirit are closely related as seen in the word for breath, respiration."
Fetuses breath inside the womb by the 12-14 week of gestation. Also, traditionally there have been no antibiotics, c-sections, billiruin lights or blankets nor ECMO for keeping babies (and mothers) alive. If tradition was all that mattered concerning medical decisions and outcomes then most of us would have died young.
2) "Identical twins do not separate at conception but several weeks later."
This premise for his argument concerning "a soul" is very mistaken. Fraternal twins come from 2 eggs and 2 sperm. Identical twins come from 1 egg and 1 sperm in which there is a splitting into 2 zygotes (instead of just 1) and this happens the vast majority of times by the 10th day (otherwise the risk for conjoined "siamese" twins is high).
3) "If a future life as an angel is more real and present than this life on earth then life here is experienced as an unborn angel."
Say what? I have never heard this from any of my anti-abortion friends. I don't recall any of them saying they are going to be angels in heaven. I certainly do not. This mass-characterization of the anti-abortion group appears more straw man argument than Libertarian-based pro-abortion opinion. Nor does it negate those that would agree with his statement concerning angels and afterlife. It is one belief versus another.
5) "There is a solution to this problem after all but it comes from science and may therefore not be acceptable to either side. The technology to freeze embryos in liquid nitrogen was developed for the livestock market and the basic procedures are now well understood. Frozen embryos are not dead and therefore their souls are not lost. They are transported into the future which will hopefully value them more than we do now. They may repopulate the world after a plague or populate another world far away. Thousands can be stored in a small space and the cost of liquid nitrogen is falling all the time.
The pro life movement now has a positive solution it can offer. They can open their own abortion clinics where the embryos will be frozen thus saving the souls of the unborn for a future life in a better world. Most mothers to be would want their unborn children to have a chance at life in the future and this is exactly what the pro life activists also want."
Now this just sounds like some creepy scientology rationalization. Pro-lifers doing abortions and saving the embryos for the future? This is called "projection" - your friend is placing his own rationalizations for abortion into the pro-life argument. It is a fruitless tree he wants us to feed from. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.
Harry was a lot of fun. He (and eventually his wife, too) threw the best parties ever, because of the great diversity of their friends. Many of us miss him a lot, and I fear my words below will not do his ideas justice, but I feel compelled to respond.
1. A fetus/baby may "breathe" in the womb, but not air. Harry is historically right, that first breath of air and cry is important for humanity, whether or not it helps your side of the abortion argument, and we need to stay honest about that (Harry's watching, among others!).
2. Whether it's 10 days or a couple of weeks, his question about the soul or souls of identical twins is a good one (which nobody, you included, has so-far answered).
3. Libertarians are neither pro or anti abortion, but your side of the abortion debate seems very influenced by religion and religious arguments. I don't have experience with the "angels" argument either, but it wasn't my point -- Harry's new idea was.
4. (You skipped 4., for some reason.) Try this Harry-essay, too.
5. No, it's not got anything to do with Scientology, but Travolta is right that the school shootings are more drug-influenced than the media reports, and sarcasmo remains right that the news media never reported the drug, the doctor, or the dosage of the psychodrug, but back to the subject...If the embryo is frozen and saved, it's not aborted. You want to "project" control onto those with a choice, and it hasn't worked at stopping, or even slowing down, abortion. What Democrats and Republicans have done for my lifetime has been an abject failure, and you need to keep this in mind. Libertarian Harry proposed something different, and it's something that would allow compromise. It's natural for partisans of either side to want to reject compromises, because they're used to argument, but Harry's proposed compromise is a tree you probably fed from the last time you had a steak or a glass of milk, in the sense that it works on cows, just fine, "creepy" as you may want it to seem. JMR
I enjoy parties where people discuss a variety of topics from a diverse range of views. Add a little good food plus or minus a little alcohol and it beats just about any night of watching TV. ("Lost" fanatic on board)
1) Harry connected breathing with spirituality, one a concrete act that requires no act of faith as it is a tangible process, the other a concept and an article of faith. The definition of "breath" requires context and may or may not include actual oxygen/atmosphere. Fetuses do breath in the womb, and, "traditionally" always have. Semantics aside, I disagree with Harry's qualifier of "traditionally" life only begins and ends with first and last breath. Traditionally in Christianity, the fetus was a life that did not require birth in order to be claimed as alive. Harry's historical/traditional context is his own, and even though you and others may share in it, it does not make it the sole opinion. I am trying to use historical and contemporary facts to argue against Harry's opinion. One can debate an issue without incorporating much of their bias. Just ask a trial attorney or a high school debate team member.
2) I told you my answers would remain as secular as possible, so why the attack on a secular answer concerning souls? Since there is no matter of fact and only human opinion on twins and souls, your friend Harry has an interesting question. Ask a theologian. My part was to clarify and correct innacuracies in Harry's statements. Using Harry's logic, if Harry was wrong about fetal development then what else is he wrong about. Perhaps he is wrong about souls and abortions.
3) You have made a blind assumption about me and my views. Once again I tried to remain as secular as possible and explore and critique Harry's views, which require using both science and religion, fact and faith, since Harry utilized both in his argument. One does not have to have "strong religious beliefs" to be anti-abortion. Maybe where Harry lives it is "common" but not everyone on my block. And one can be anti-abortion concerning oneself while allowing others their "right" of decision. That would seem at once pro- and anti-abortion but with a Libertarian twist. And I'll wager that nearly 100% of pregnant women have thegreatest rapport with their unborn child, not the pro-lifers. Also, there are people that do not believe in an afterlife that still hold life as "sacred", for wont of a better word. Harry's argument appears directed against what the media has termed the "Christian Right" and is an argument of exclusion and therefore limited in scope and validity. But I guess one has to start somewhere. I don't know if we are "unborn" angels. I thought Christianity viewed humans as being able to go to Heaven or Hell, and that becoming an angel required a "re-birth" of sorts, therefore we are not "unborn" angels in the same fashion as we are not "unborn" devils.
4) Doh! I have since reviewed the Arabic numbering system and have reincorporated the number four back into my vocabulary. Unfortunately I can not guarantee I will never again make that mistake.
5) Ok. You are once again assuming my position and that is wrong. I could easily conclude you are a Godless Communist but that would be innapropriate given the paucity of information exchanged. You are bordering on ad hominum arguments which are counterproductive. With that said, sucking an embryo out of the uterus is aborting a pregnancy, medically speaking. It matters not that Harry suggests freezing it for later "use" as a grand scheme. Having an "end of the world" supply of embryos to repopulate the human species is just plain disgusting and creepy eugenics in my opinion. And it is contemptuous relativism to compare humans to cows, and that is my personal opinion. We may have love for them, we may treat them with respect and compassion, but they are our food source and not our children. On a more factual basis, I thought in vitro fertilization was done with cows, not sucking already impanted embryos out of their wombs to be frozen for later use. Maybe someone with factual working knowledge can clarify on this issue.
1. Harry's not the only one that connected 'em, as he pointed-out, so does our very language. Anyone who's done some serious yoga will agree that breath can influence spiritual ideas, too.
2. How is pointing out the fact that nobody has answered a question Harry asked an "attack"? You'll probably need to develop a thicker skin around here to survive, methinks...
3. I talk about your side, not you personally, and I happen to still think I'm right in what I said about your side. And I'm unsure how Harry's argument even addresses the "Christian Right" directly, unless you count his freezing-compromise idea, which you don't like, but which would apply to all faiths equally IMO.
4. I just hope y'all like Harry's other essays. His goat recipe is also really-good, but I like goat. Harry would always (in the early '80s) cook a goat on May 1st to celebrate the demise of socialism he knew was coming. It was inspiring, and he'd of course invite local socialists to the feast, often turning them into libertarians on the spot.
5. Again, I'm NOT assuming any position on your part, but it's surprising that you don't like Harry's idea at least a little. I had to make the point (which contained exactly 0 contempt & 0 relativism, BTW) about cows, but I'm not too familiar with the latest tech on cattle breeding, either, except I know that some bull-sperm is very valuable, so presumably they use it efficiently. And it may be disgusting and creepy, but Harry has NOT proposed any form of eugenics, unless I missed it. JMR
1) Your answer is a non-sequitar to my comments or Harry's postulate. Harry says breathing is life. Fetuses breath. Beathing takes place before birth. Using Harry's own argument, life, then, can be said to take place before birth and therefor the spirit is present prior to birth. His premise concerning breathing though philosophical is innacurate medically. Was Harry implying that the fetus is not alive because it has not breathed? Or do we parse things out such that life occurs when the fetus is "viable" and breaths oxygen independently from the mother? It is just plain ignorance to say "traditionally" life began at conception as a "new" perspective. For thousands of years mankind figured out that the fetus was alive and growing in the womb and was a proximate result of copulation. As for "from a scientific standpoint", if Harry was born before computers existed, well then, they couldn't be so today? Science is constantly evolving. Just because there is not an answer today does not mean there won't be an answer someday. When Harry can show me proof there is no soul then his argument rises to the top. Otherwise he will have his faith in his unproven beliefs and others will have theirs. Harry neither "wins" nor "loses" on issues of faith.
2) I told you straight up that I would approach this secularly. Yet you wag your finger at me about not tackling the "soul" issue. My purpose was to discuss anomalies in Harry's argument, not to explain what a "soul" is or when one acquires it. The answer(s) about "soul" is an article of faith and subject to interpretation. For the big picture on whether there is a "soul" try asking theologians and philosophers.
3) Once again, I am trying to approach this as a secular debate, not a litany of my personal opinions. When you talk about "my side", it starts sounding an awful lot like "you people" to a black person. You commented that "my [sic] side of the abortion seems very influenced by religion and religious arguments". You have made an assupmtion which ignores my overlying position to remain as secular as possible while employing religious and historical and contemporary facts to debate Harry's own use of same. I have not attempted to imply or overtly display my personal thoughts on allowing or not allowing legalized abortion. My arguments included elements of things I may not adhere to. That is known as taking a position in a debate and arguing that position. Not everything needs to be worn on one's sleeve for all the world to see. Back to Harry's argument... I don't think it's a leap of "faith" to infer Harry was referring to the "Christian Right" when he references "pro life activists" at least in our contemporary times. The media has ordained "pro life activists" as the "Christian Right". If there is another group for whom "pro life activists" comes to mind in America, having been zealously and "religiously" portrayed as, then please let me know. Just whom did Harry refer to when he used the qualifier "activist" - because "we need to stay honest about that."
4) Never had goat stew but I would try it. Love a well cooked lamb.
5) Harry's "final solution", opps I mean compromise (JOKING! BLACK HUMOR!), represents a false choice to me. I doubt it will fly for the pro-lifers, let alone the activists. I'm not sure how it would fly with the pro-abortion group. Maybe you could do an informal survey and see what responses are elicited. It would be interesting to read. How does Harry know that freezing embryos doesn't interfer with their "soul"? That requires "faith", something a secular Libertarian would dismiss. Breeding animals for a desired purpose represents eugenics. Using frozen embryos to repopulate after a "plague" implies a problem with reproduction in the survivors. Storage of frozen embryos sounds periously close to a baby factory, in the pejorative sense. Using frozen embryos in this fashion smacks of eugenics. It also fails to explain how the frozen embryo's will be used - grown in a laboratory or reimplanted in a uterus artficially made ready via pharmaceuticals - and under what guarantees that the frozen embryos are utilized only for their original intention. Does Harry trust what others may do a hundred years from now? We (the whole world) have difficulty governing ourselves well enough today without abrogating rights, let alone guaranteeing what will happen in the future (have you read about recent "eminent domain" issues in America?). Regardless, Harry's idea is a false choice for pro-lifers and does not represent a "positive solution it can offer" - either we can have "traditional" abortion or we can have the "new fangled" abortion: Medically, abortion is the termination of pregnancy and he fetus dies as a result, so, terminating a pregnancy whilst sucking out and freezing the embryo is still abortion. Solution confers choice and pro-lifers have made their "positive" choice already, although some would probably say God made the decision already.
Lastly, your last bit from reply #5 contained a conflictual statement:
"...I'm NOT assuming any position on your part, but it's surprising that you don't like Harry's idea at least a little." Being surprised requires prior assumption.
Overall, I have enjoyed our mental sparring. Now I need to pick up my Chinese food for dinner. Will definately try some goat stew one of these days!
When I saw the "You can't save the earth unless . . . . " quote this morning I laughed so hard I could barely keep my Corn Flakes down. I had a hunch I'd be seeing more of Dogbert today at NewsBusters. Scott Adams has the environmentalist credo down pat. Thanks for posting this Matt.
"Dilbert" emits a bad one about as often as NB's "Gaggle" is actually funny, Bal, which as we're painfully-aware by now, ain't too often. ;) You should be reading Dilbert daily, and sending in ideas to Scott Adams if you have bosses like m...Well, nevermind! The point is, Adams is under pressure to produce like other professional cartoonists, but hopefully he won't get burned-out like Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes) did because he "cheats" via email, shamelessly getting ideas from his own readers. (In fact, emulating Scott Adams' method by asking for input from NB readers might do a lot to improve "Gaggle"!) JMR
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
YEA, BABY!
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 14:44 ET by goldenthroatHey, Scott, pour it on with these comics! What a way to attack liberal hypocrisy and hysteria! Ya gotta love it!
I can't wait for the "official" reaction from the left - now they'll want to ban conservative comic strips along with Fox News!
Help control the game show host population by having Bob Barker spayed or neutered.
The cartoon is very funny and
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 16:31 ET by BradzillaThe cartoon is very funny and spot-on, but he won't become a conservative poster child anytime soon. He has a liberal bent overall in my estimation, and has written many comics that ridicule Christianity and religion in general.
A clarification...
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 17:04 ET by goldenthroatBradzilla,
I never said that "Dilbert" was a "conservative" or "liberal" comic - all I am saying is that the left will now be looking more for these kinds of freedom of expression and try to put the kabash on them just like they're trying to do now with Fox News. I'd bet a steak dinner on it!
Now, if you really want a left-wing, liberal "comic" - and I use that term loosely - "Doonesbury" fits that description to a tee!
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
Ridiculing any religion is n
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 23:45 ET by dahliatraversRidiculing any religion is not good. But the fact that Scott Adams is not conservative puts this criticism in the same category as that of Alexander Cockburn's marvelous attack on AGW - neither can be brainlessly dismissed as the knee-jerk anti-liberal commentary of a right winger.
That's too funny!That Scott A
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 14:49 ET by Dave RThat's too funny!
That Scott Adams is a genious.
Gen... gein... geni... gggg..
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 16:57 ET by USnotU.S.Gen... gein... geni... gggg...
Careful, snotty, your own grammar hasn't been flawless...
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 17:03 ET by RJCareful, snotty, your own grammar hasn't been flawless....that means you should be grateful that we try to avoid becoming Grammar Nazis here.
Snotty,I meant genius, dummy.
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 17:14 ET by Dave RSnotty,
I meant genius, dummy.
Geez.
How long...
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 17:46 ET by goldenthroatUSnotU.S.,
How long have you had this condition?
All of his political writin
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 14:49 ET by sarcasmoAll of his political writings are worth a look, but conservatives who wish to actually make logical points with Greens might wish to look at my late friend Harry's answers to their values phrased as questions. This is the short version, but I encourage a look at the full versions on the main link, too. Harry also had better than usual (I'm possibly damning him with faint praise, considering recent mindlessness I've seen here) ideas about abortion.
JMR
I hate replies to myself, b
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 16:48 ET by sarcasmoI hate replies to myself, but if you want to change minds on an issue, I really encourage looking at Harry's ideas, and especially his responses to the Greens. And this URL is one I always give to vegetarians I meet. I really miss Harry, his simple and clear writing style only barely betrays the wonderful friend underneath. When he died of cancer, Harry gave his body to science, which is typical of his examples in life -- fighting the good fight even in death.
JMR
Your friend sounds like a nic
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 22:51 ET by stratmanYour friend sounds like a nice man and a wonderful friend to you.
His writings mix politics with a variety of topics including religion and science. His first statement seems the essential Libertarian take on the individual, but beyond that point, there are a few gaps in his writings that, unfortunatley, compromise the message. Tyring to keep this as secular as possible:
1) "From a historical standpoint it is a very new perspective that life begins at conception. Traditionally life begins and ends with the beginning and ending of breath. The ideas of breath and spirit are closely related as seen in the word for breath, respiration."
Fetuses breath inside the womb by the 12-14 week of gestation. Also, traditionally there have been no antibiotics, c-sections, billiruin lights or blankets nor ECMO for keeping babies (and mothers) alive. If tradition was all that mattered concerning medical decisions and outcomes then most of us would have died young.
2) "Identical twins do not separate at conception but several weeks later."
This premise for his argument concerning "a soul" is very mistaken. Fraternal twins come from 2 eggs and 2 sperm. Identical twins come from 1 egg and 1 sperm in which there is a splitting into 2 zygotes (instead of just 1) and this happens the vast majority of times by the 10th day (otherwise the risk for conjoined "siamese" twins is high).
3) "If a future life as an angel is more real and present than this life on earth then life here is experienced as an unborn angel."
Say what? I have never heard this from any of my anti-abortion friends. I don't recall any of them saying they are going to be angels in heaven. I certainly do not. This mass-characterization of the anti-abortion group appears more straw man argument than Libertarian-based pro-abortion opinion. Nor does it negate those that would agree with his statement concerning angels and afterlife. It is one belief versus another.
5) "There is a solution to this problem after all but it comes from science and may therefore not be acceptable to either side. The technology to freeze embryos in liquid nitrogen was developed for the livestock market and the basic procedures are now well understood. Frozen embryos are not dead and therefore their souls are not lost. They are transported into the future which will hopefully value them more than we do now. They may repopulate the world after a plague or populate another world far away. Thousands can be stored in a small space and the cost of liquid nitrogen is falling all the time.
The pro life movement now has a positive solution it can offer. They can open their own abortion clinics where the embryos will be frozen thus saving the souls of the unborn for a future life in a better world. Most mothers to be would want their unborn children to have a chance at life in the future and this is exactly what the pro life activists also want."
Now this just sounds like some creepy scientology rationalization. Pro-lifers doing abortions and saving the embryos for the future? This is called "projection" - your friend is placing his own rationalizations for abortion into the pro-life argument. It is a fruitless tree he wants us to feed from. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.
Harry was a lot of fun. He
Thu, 06/21/2007 - 04:37 ET by sarcasmoHarry was a lot of fun. He (and eventually his wife, too) threw the best parties ever, because of the great diversity of their friends. Many of us miss him a lot, and I fear my words below will not do his ideas justice, but I feel compelled to respond.
1. A fetus/baby may "breathe" in the womb, but not air. Harry is historically right, that first breath of air and cry is important for humanity, whether or not it helps your side of the abortion argument, and we need to stay honest about that (Harry's watching, among others!).
2. Whether it's 10 days or a couple of weeks, his question about the soul or souls of identical twins is a good one (which nobody, you included, has so-far answered).
3. Libertarians are neither pro or anti abortion, but your side of the abortion debate seems very influenced by religion and religious arguments. I don't have experience with the "angels" argument either, but it wasn't my point -- Harry's new idea was.
4. (You skipped 4., for some reason.) Try this Harry-essay, too.
5. No, it's not got anything to do with Scientology, but Travolta is right that the school shootings are more drug-influenced than the media reports, and sarcasmo remains right that the news media never reported the drug, the doctor, or the dosage of the psychodrug, but back to the subject...If the embryo is frozen and saved, it's not aborted. You want to "project" control onto those with a choice, and it hasn't worked at stopping, or even slowing down, abortion. What Democrats and Republicans have done for my lifetime has been an abject failure, and you need to keep this in mind. Libertarian Harry proposed something different, and it's something that would allow compromise. It's natural for partisans of either side to want to reject compromises, because they're used to argument, but Harry's proposed compromise is a tree you probably fed from the last time you had a steak or a glass of milk, in the sense that it works on cows, just fine, "creepy" as you may want it to seem.
JMR
I enjoy parties where people
Thu, 06/21/2007 - 14:37 ET by stratmanI enjoy parties where people discuss a variety of topics from a diverse range of views. Add a little good food plus or minus a little alcohol and it beats just about any night of watching TV. ("Lost" fanatic on board)
1) Harry connected breathing with spirituality, one a concrete act that requires no act of faith as it is a tangible process, the other a concept and an article of faith. The definition of "breath" requires context and may or may not include actual oxygen/atmosphere. Fetuses do breath in the womb, and, "traditionally" always have. Semantics aside, I disagree with Harry's qualifier of "traditionally" life only begins and ends with first and last breath. Traditionally in Christianity, the fetus was a life that did not require birth in order to be claimed as alive. Harry's historical/traditional context is his own, and even though you and others may share in it, it does not make it the sole opinion. I am trying to use historical and contemporary facts to argue against Harry's opinion. One can debate an issue without incorporating much of their bias. Just ask a trial attorney or a high school debate team member.
2) I told you my answers would remain as secular as possible, so why the attack on a secular answer concerning souls? Since there is no matter of fact and only human opinion on twins and souls, your friend Harry has an interesting question. Ask a theologian. My part was to clarify and correct innacuracies in Harry's statements. Using Harry's logic, if Harry was wrong about fetal development then what else is he wrong about. Perhaps he is wrong about souls and abortions.
3) You have made a blind assumption about me and my views. Once again I tried to remain as secular as possible and explore and critique Harry's views, which require using both science and religion, fact and faith, since Harry utilized both in his argument. One does not have to have "strong religious beliefs" to be anti-abortion. Maybe where Harry lives it is "common" but not everyone on my block. And one can be anti-abortion concerning oneself while allowing others their "right" of decision. That would seem at once pro- and anti-abortion but with a Libertarian twist. And I'll wager that nearly 100% of pregnant women have the greatest rapport with their unborn child, not the pro-lifers. Also, there are people that do not believe in an afterlife that still hold life as "sacred", for wont of a better word. Harry's argument appears directed against what the media has termed the "Christian Right" and is an argument of exclusion and therefore limited in scope and validity. But I guess one has to start somewhere. I don't know if we are "unborn" angels. I thought Christianity viewed humans as being able to go to Heaven or Hell, and that becoming an angel required a "re-birth" of sorts, therefore we are not "unborn" angels in the same fashion as we are not "unborn" devils.
4) Doh! I have since reviewed the Arabic numbering system and have reincorporated the number four back into my vocabulary. Unfortunately I can not guarantee I will never again make that mistake.
5) Ok. You are once again assuming my position and that is wrong. I could easily conclude you are a Godless Communist but that would be innapropriate given the paucity of information exchanged. You are bordering on ad hominum arguments which are counterproductive. With that said, sucking an embryo out of the uterus is aborting a pregnancy, medically speaking. It matters not that Harry suggests freezing it for later "use" as a grand scheme. Having an "end of the world" supply of embryos to repopulate the human species is just plain disgusting and creepy eugenics in my opinion. And it is contemptuous relativism to compare humans to cows, and that is my personal opinion. We may have love for them, we may treat them with respect and compassion, but they are our food source and not our children. On a more factual basis, I thought in vitro fertilization was done with cows, not sucking already impanted embryos out of their wombs to be frozen for later use. Maybe someone with factual working knowledge can clarify on this issue.
1. Harry's not the only one
Thu, 06/21/2007 - 14:58 ET by sarcasmo1. Harry's not the only one that connected 'em, as he pointed-out, so does our very language. Anyone who's done some serious yoga will agree that breath can influence spiritual ideas, too.
2. How is pointing out the fact that nobody has answered a question Harry asked an "attack"? You'll probably need to develop a thicker skin around here to survive, methinks...
3. I talk about your side, not you personally, and I happen to still think I'm right in what I said about your side. And I'm unsure how Harry's argument even addresses the "Christian Right" directly, unless you count his freezing-compromise idea, which you don't like, but which would apply to all faiths equally IMO.
4. I just hope y'all like Harry's other essays. His goat recipe is also really-good, but I like goat. Harry would always (in the early '80s) cook a goat on May 1st to celebrate the demise of socialism he knew was coming. It was inspiring, and he'd of course invite local socialists to the feast, often turning them into libertarians on the spot.
5. Again, I'm NOT assuming any position on your part, but it's surprising that you don't like Harry's idea at least a little. I had to make the point (which contained exactly 0 contempt & 0 relativism, BTW) about cows, but I'm not too familiar with the latest tech on cattle breeding, either, except I know that some bull-sperm is very valuable, so presumably they use it efficiently. And it may be disgusting and creepy, but Harry has NOT proposed any form of eugenics, unless I missed it.
JMR
1) Your answer is a non-seq
Thu, 06/21/2007 - 18:45 ET by stratman1) Your answer is a non-sequitar to my comments or Harry's postulate. Harry says breathing is life. Fetuses breath. Beathing takes place before birth. Using Harry's own argument, life, then, can be said to take place before birth and therefor the spirit is present prior to birth. His premise concerning breathing though philosophical is innacurate medically. Was Harry implying that the fetus is not alive because it has not breathed? Or do we parse things out such that life occurs when the fetus is "viable" and breaths oxygen independently from the mother? It is just plain ignorance to say "traditionally" life began at conception as a "new" perspective. For thousands of years mankind figured out that the fetus was alive and growing in the womb and was a proximate result of copulation. As for "from a scientific standpoint", if Harry was born before computers existed, well then, they couldn't be so today? Science is constantly evolving. Just because there is not an answer today does not mean there won't be an answer someday. When Harry can show me proof there is no soul then his argument rises to the top. Otherwise he will have his faith in his unproven beliefs and others will have theirs. Harry neither "wins" nor "loses" on issues of faith.
2) I told you straight up that I would approach this secularly. Yet you wag your finger at me about not tackling the "soul" issue. My purpose was to discuss anomalies in Harry's argument, not to explain what a "soul" is or when one acquires it. The answer(s) about "soul" is an article of faith and subject to interpretation. For the big picture on whether there is a "soul" try asking theologians and philosophers.
3) Once again, I am trying to approach this as a secular debate, not a litany of my personal opinions. When you talk about "my side", it starts sounding an awful lot like "you people" to a black person. You commented that "my [sic] side of the abortion seems very influenced by religion and religious arguments". You have made an assupmtion which ignores my overlying position to remain as secular as possible while employing religious and historical and contemporary facts to debate Harry's own use of same. I have not attempted to imply or overtly display my personal thoughts on allowing or not allowing legalized abortion. My arguments included elements of things I may not adhere to. That is known as taking a position in a debate and arguing that position. Not everything needs to be worn on one's sleeve for all the world to see. Back to Harry's argument... I don't think it's a leap of "faith" to infer Harry was referring to the "Christian Right" when he references "pro life activists" at least in our contemporary times. The media has ordained "pro life activists" as the "Christian Right". If there is another group for whom "pro life activists" comes to mind in America, having been zealously and "religiously" portrayed as, then please let me know. Just whom did Harry refer to when he used the qualifier "activist" - because "we need to stay honest about that."
4) Never had goat stew but I would try it. Love a well cooked lamb.
5) Harry's "final solution", opps I mean compromise (JOKING! BLACK HUMOR!), represents a false choice to me. I doubt it will fly for the pro-lifers, let alone the activists. I'm not sure how it would fly with the pro-abortion group. Maybe you could do an informal survey and see what responses are elicited. It would be interesting to read. How does Harry know that freezing embryos doesn't interfer with their "soul"? That requires "faith", something a secular Libertarian would dismiss. Breeding animals for a desired purpose represents eugenics. Using frozen embryos to repopulate after a "plague" implies a problem with reproduction in the survivors. Storage of frozen embryos sounds periously close to a baby factory, in the pejorative sense. Using frozen embryos in this fashion smacks of eugenics. It also fails to explain how the frozen embryo's will be used - grown in a laboratory or reimplanted in a uterus artficially made ready via pharmaceuticals - and under what guarantees that the frozen embryos are utilized only for their original intention. Does Harry trust what others may do a hundred years from now? We (the whole world) have difficulty governing ourselves well enough today without abrogating rights, let alone guaranteeing what will happen in the future (have you read about recent "eminent domain" issues in America?). Regardless, Harry's idea is a false choice for pro-lifers and does not represent a "positive solution it can offer" - either we can have "traditional" abortion or we can have the "new fangled" abortion: Medically, abortion is the termination of pregnancy and he fetus dies as a result, so, terminating a pregnancy whilst sucking out and freezing the embryo is still abortion. Solution confers choice and pro-lifers have made their "positive" choice already, although some would probably say God made the decision already.
Lastly, your last bit from reply #5 contained a conflictual statement:
"...I'm NOT assuming any position on your part, but it's surprising that you don't like Harry's idea at least a little." Being surprised requires prior assumption.
Overall, I have enjoyed our mental sparring. Now I need to pick up my Chinese food for dinner. Will definately try some goat stew one of these days!
Best wishes.
OMG!Delicious...priceless....
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 14:50 ET by bigtimerOMG!
Delicious...priceless.... and all that jazz.
I love these..bet we could add some of our own....heheheeee...
Thanks for the afternoon irony with laughter.
When I saw the "You can'
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 14:53 ET by CaringwhiteguyWhen I saw the "You can't save the earth unless . . . . " quote this morning I laughed so hard I could barely keep my Corn Flakes down. I had a hunch I'd be seeing more of Dogbert today at NewsBusters. Scott Adams has the environmentalist credo down pat. Thanks for posting this Matt.
Sit in the dark and decompo
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 14:55 ET by balboaSit in the dark and decompose on some garden seeds.
That's hilarious! I stopped reading Dilbert 'cause it seemed to be getting stale...maybe I should start up again.
"Dilbert" emits a
Thu, 06/21/2007 - 04:44 ET by sarcasmo"Dilbert" emits a bad one about as often as NB's "Gaggle" is actually funny, Bal, which as we're painfully-aware by now, ain't too often. ;) You should be reading Dilbert daily, and sending in ideas to Scott Adams if you have bosses like m...Well, nevermind! The point is, Adams is under pressure to produce like other professional cartoonists, but hopefully he won't get burned-out like Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes) did because he "cheats" via email, shamelessly getting ideas from his own readers. (In fact, emulating Scott Adams' method by asking for input from NB readers might do a lot to improve "Gaggle"!)
JMR
Ha, Matthew, I saved that strip today,
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 15:00 ET by RJHa, Matthew, I saved that strip today, and was waiting for an opportunity to put it up. Glad you did....
Not only did I save those, I
Thu, 06/21/2007 - 10:35 ET by pbanks7Not only did I save those, I emailed them to conservatives and to GWers. Take that! Today's is equally funny.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
"You cant save the Ear
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 15:21 ET by The Wicked Conservative"You cant save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice!"
BRILLIANT!!! You've completely summed up the eco-elite. Liberal dogma made painfully clear by Dogbert
The man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man with an argument.
I love how the boss says th
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 16:19 ET by AJSHOPEI love how the boss says that he does hate the earth a little. That's awesome.
Dilby Rules....And of course,
Wed, 06/20/2007 - 23:10 ET by BlondeDilby Rules....
And of course, my alter ego is Alice & the Fist of Death.
This is well known to my co-workers.
Better than Dogbert, though, is Catbert (the evil Catbert).
If Scott Adams is slaying the libs with his commentary...they are truly toast. Stick a fork in them....they're done, done, done.
....my alter ego is Alice &am
Thu, 06/21/2007 - 09:19 ET by Dave R....my alter ego is Alice & the Fist of Death.
LOL.
BTW-I always liked Catbert better, too.
Just maybe he's sharing his t
Thu, 06/21/2007 - 14:41 ET by upcountrywaterJust maybe he's sharing his true feelings about EVIL corporations, and the way they REALLY THINK? I think he's got some really funny stuff.
IRANIAN URANIMUN, how much did they make today?