True Horizon

Recently, my friend (though he may deny that descriptor of himself, I don’t) and former college roommate, who is running for Congress in the 29th District of New York, issued a press release about his stance on Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) to which I am compelled to respond. I understand Mr. Massa’s zeal for pursuing medical solutions and being “pro-cure” (as he calls himself). As a cancer survivor, Mr. Massa’s sensitivity to these issues is perfectly understandable. I share them. So, I should preface my remarks by saying that I, and many like me, do not in any way oppose stem cell research – as long as it does not entail the destruction of human embryos.

Mr. Massa said that his opponents hold “an extreme, politically convenient belief system that favors frozen, microscopic cells over living human beings. How pro-life is that?” I believe this statement is loaded with inaccuracies and deserves a reasoned response: (Read on …)

Abortion is an issue that forces us into intellectual corners. It is a topic that challenges the task of thinking clearly not only about a moral dilemma, but about how we view the origin and nature of our very humanity. It is hard to imagine a more perfect example of this than that which was offered in USA Today recently.You know you are in for an unbiased, objective opinion when, asking the question “Where does God stand on abortion,” the author starts out by addressing:

“the constitutionality of a rare procedure opponents call “partial-birth” abortion

The inclusion of “rare” in the description of partial-birth abortion is a common tactic used to minimize any negativity one may hold toward the subject so as to avoid having to defend it. It harkens back to former President Clinton’s hope that we could succeed at making abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” But it defies logic that the infrequency of an act is sufficient to justify its moral status. (Read on …)

Yesterday’s USA Today ran an article about the debate concerning the identification and reclassification of several bodies orbiting our solar system. Some of these, smaller than our own Moon, have previously been labeled as asteroids or planetoids. But, with a recent redefinition of what it means to be a planet, some of these may soon achieve an asteroidal promotion to planet status (while poor Pluto risks being demoted). The new definition includes any object:

• that orbits a star
• that has been pulled into a ball shape by its own gravity
• that is not a satellite of another planet

While this is an interesting scientific debate for astronomers, what caught my eye was the philosophical assumptions the article exposed.Though they seem pretty straightforward to me, one astronomer expressed “shock” at the newly proposed definitions of a planet. Why would this be so controversial? (Read on …)

Sixteen-year old Abraham Cherrix has been ordered by a judge – against the wishes of both he and his parents – to undergo chemotherapy to treat his cancer. Public outrage toward the judge’s decision, at least as it is being reported in the mainstream press, is muted. At first glance, the fact that Abraham is being explicitly told what he can do with, and to, his body, seems to stand in sharp contrast to the pro-abortionist creed that “no one should be able to tell a woman what she can do with her body.” Isn’t this just a little inconsistent? (Read on …)