HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
July 22, 2006 If one wants to defend and protect marriage, why not ban divorce? It's easier to attack gay marriage, besides, many people dislike homosexuals anyway. If one wants to stop stem cell research, why not ban fertility clinics? It's less popular to attack such treatments, as well as contraception (though some Christians are trying, but that's for another article). There is a whole political element that I think John Waters missed in his latest article. I won't, however, be focusing on politics in this response. The fetuses which are used in stem cell research have a zero chance of reaching adulthood; they will, if not used to help find cures for many vile diseases, eventually die. Keeping them in frozen-limbo is a temporary existence. John Waters dislikes humanism and linked this “potential scourge of modern times” with baby-killing. Perhaps John doesn't realize that stem cell research is supported by most Americans and, shockingly, most of Congress. One does not need to be a humanist to support it. It's very easy to extend this debate to abortion in general and muddy the waters beyond all hope of having a reasonable debate. This is something I won't do at this time, though I have written about it before. I do want to address this point, however, as it has been made by several over the last few days: Surely Fred is glad that as a fetus he didn't get aborted. I am glad that as a fetus I didn't get aborted. I'm sure that John is also glad that his parents decided to have unprotected sex, that they decided to go out and that they decided to attempt a relationship in the first place. Each of these points along the time line to the formation of John Waters are equally valid. Divert at any junction, and John would not exist. The “final” stage isn't any more special; even during this stretch, there is still a fair chance that John wouldn't have made it, as 60% of pregnancies end in miscarriages, with the mother totally oblivious. The last time John crossed his local college campus and kept clear of the ladies he very likely killed some potential human beings. Of course I'm glad that I wasn't aborted, now that I the brains to consider such possibilities, just as I'm glad that my dad went into the military and that my mom had a thing for servicemen. I don't weep, however, for the billions of potential beings which were never conceived for lack of interest, “headaches”, bad chemistry, bad timing, BO or bad breath, not to mention the use of condoms and birth control pills. Those clumps destroyed during stem cell research have virtually no ability to grasp their environment and surroundings; a lowly wasp is a perceptive genius in comparison. However, in the grand scheme of things, a wasp has rather limited perceptive abilities. Wasps are roughly in the same league as lobsters, being only a bit more advanced. Boiling a lobster alive is a nearly as great of an “offense” to my way of thinking as slicing a wasp in two. Ever dine at Red Lobster, John? Research scientists, who are required to take ethics classes, use intelligence as the basis for how a critter is treated. I'm sure many folks weep or at least feel sad at the sight of cute, dead, dog on the side of the road, sent to the great beyond by a careless driver. Who would weep at the sight of a dead octopus washed up on a beach? Scientists extend certain ethical treatments when working with octopus because they have demonstrated a rather keen “intellect” as compared with creatures in that region of the shrub of life. Knowledge should be the basis of ethics, enhancing our evolved morality. I change my mind as knowledge is gained. I overcome any revulsion for the slimy, very non-human, cold, non-furry, octopus. This is the essence of humanism: using our natural empathy and extending it beyond tradition, beyond common accepted norms. Humanism was his main target as he danced in and around attacking the American university system (arguably the best in the world) and expressing his fear of science. So, I'll take some time to address humanism specifically and partially rebut an older article of John's. Here are the basic tenets of secular humanism:
In a past article, John downgraded humanism because of what he called its low popularity, lack of pretty churches and so forth. Humanism in the West goes back to the Greeks, true enough, and it has been replaced and kept at bay by Christianity – or has it? Many modern Western Christians hold views which are quite humanistic. Less so in the US, more so in Europe. However, does the popularity of something have anything to do with its value as truth? There was a time when Christianity was a small faith – was it wrong then? Soon, Islam will be the world's major faith – will it be right then? Most of the prettiest churches and religious art I've seen were Catholic – is Catholicism therefore better than American evangelicalism? Looking at the East, on the other hand, we see several religions that have some, or even most, of the values of humanism, from Buddhism, to Shintoism, to Taoism and likely others. Buddhism actually started as a rather atheistic system, but it added supernatural elements over the years, partially due to Hindu influence. One branch, however, even today, is pretty close, although there is mention of several supernatural elements. These world views have a few concepts which I consider crucial and which top anything that Christianity or Islam can provide, the explicitly stated avoidance of dogma, for example. In any case, it's very easy to make Fred the bad guy for having different sensibilities – John gets bonus points from most for seeming to support Christianity. But isn't this dishonest? John has referred to the Jesus story as a “myth” several times. If John merely takes what he considers the positive virtues of Christianity and discards the rest of the unbelievable stuff, then perhaps he is really a humanist at heart. Here is more about humanism, also from WikiPedia: Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism. Humanism is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems, and is also incorporated into some religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or divinely revealed texts. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to our social and cultural problems cannot be parochial. ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@gmail.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
