gdp's Comments

http://heldts.blogspot.com/ : The sin of adoption

Wed, 8 May 2013 16:12:46 +0000

I'm an adoptive mom too, through international adoption. I think it's very important for adoptive families to acknowledge that every adoption begins with a tragedy. It's a tragedy for a child to be separated from his or her first family. Adoption is the attempt to heal the results of that tragedy as much as possible, but the tragedy can never be erased. To glorify adoption risks glorifying the separation of the child from the family, and risks encouraging relinquishment even in cases when it is not necessary.

Hoi Logoi : God is not Aristotelian

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:50:29 +0000

(This is the same person who posted the first comment—I just didn't bother logging into my Intense Debate account the first time.) All known mammals nurse their young with milk produced in mammary glands, and no other known animals do so, but this is not the only characteristic of mammals—nor even, I would argue, the defining characteristic (despite the name "mammal"). Mammals have a number of unique skeletal features, such as a single jawbone (most vertebrates have several bones in their lower jaws) and the inner ear bones (these two are related: the inner ear bones are homologous to the additional jaw bones in other species). Mammal teeth are also a big deal, as mammals do not (unlike reptiles) replace their teeth continuously through life. Instead they have a predetermined number of tooth sets (two in humans: baby teeth and adult teeth, but this number differs in some species). And the teeth are differentiated in a specific way. Paleontologists who study ancient mammals pay lots of attention to teeth. One of my professors in college was one of them. (I decided not to become a paleontologist largely because I just couldn't get excited about fossil teeth the size of sand grains. But not until after I filled my head with stuff like mammal jaw bones.) I'm biased towards paleontology. Most of what we know about the natural history of evolution came from paleontology—until a couple of decades ago, when genetics burst on the scene. Genetics is teaching us some incredible things, but in my heart I just don't trust it as much as fossils. (This is an outlook based on emotion, not logic, just fyi.)

SC Magazine US : RockYou hack compromises 32 million passwords - SC Magazine US

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:35:36 +0000

I am confused. Why did RockYou have people's web passwords in an SQL database to begin with? The only thing I can think of is the "service" offered by social networking sites to check for friends from your email contacts. Every time I have seen this, the site claims that the password is never stored. So is this a lie?

The Freethinker : Mormonism for Dummies

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:49:42 +0000

You know, I'm as far from becoming a Mormon as could possibly be—but I am not impressed by your argument against the LDS faith, which is nothing more than "argument by sneer." Anyone can use ridicule to make a point, but it is the basest way to do so. It's a childish schoolyard tactic. If you really want to keep this approach, it would be better to use satire or parody—something that requires you to actually engage your brain. Simple disrespect won't influence anyone who is not already on your side. Alternatively, you could take a more dispassionate approach and point out what specific things you find disagreeable or illogical, and why. Hey, I'll start: OK, it's actually hard to start. There's so much to choose from. Here's something: Joseph Smith claims to have found the Book of Mormon on some golden plates, written in an unknown language. He used some rocks to translate it. Now the plates are mysteriously lost. I cannot give even a moment's credence to a religion that absolutely depends on a revelation that cannot be verified as existing anywhere outside of the reveal-ee's mind. Now you try.

Leave the lights on : Are parents selfish if they have a big family?

Mon, 1 Jun 2009 15:05:09 +0000

Just a quick note to all the excellent commenters: This is not a personal blog. This blog views issues from a general perspective. That is why this post does not discuss any specific family. Without discussing any particular family with special needs kids, I think something needs to be clarified. "Special needs" is just a label. A child is not defined by having so-called "special needs." The labels exist to make it easier to find the specific treatment that will benefit that child. But for the most part, they are just kids, normal kids in most ways. They aren't another species, monsters, or a reason to sacrifice the other aspects of life. The needs of each one have to be taken into consideration—but this is true for all children, whether or not they have a "label." Thanks for your comments! I read them all.

Leave the lights on : The ethics of surrogate mothers

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:47:51 +0000

Your tone makes me think that you likely do not care about my response, but for the sake of others who might be interested, here it is. For years, I was part of a loving, childless couple who couldn't do it on our own biologically. I have been there. I know what it is like. And I have never thought of it as a punishment, not for one second, not for us nor for any other such couple. I want all infertile couples who want children to be able to "enjoy and appreciate one of life's most amazing gifts." I am deeply pro-life and this is part of being pro-life. Children, completely regardless of their origins, are always gifts. According to Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, "the child...shall have the right from birth...as far as possible...to know and be cared for by his or her parents." (For more, see the blog Children Have Rights.) It is for this reason that I denounce surrogacy and gamete donation. The right of the child to know his roots is greater than the privilege (not right) of adults to have children. If having biological children cannot be accomplished without violating the rights of the child, then it should not be done at all. Period. This is natural law which can be known to atheists, agnostics, and theists, not some religious fiat that only applies to Christians. Couples in this situation can turn to adoption, as I did, or they can choose to care for children in other ways, such as having a child-oriented career (from daycare to pediatrics) or by caring for young family members (which I also did).

Leave the lights on : Words nominated for banishment 2009

Mon, 9 Mar 2009 14:05:08 +0000

Yes, and clearly you failed to detect the sense of DEEP IRONY in my voice... :-)

Leave the lights on : A primer on stem cells

Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:44:28 +0000

My understanding is that currently, no embryonic stem cell (ESC) treatments have been developed. The problem seems to be that pluripotent cells are too potent, and tend to develop into tumors called teratomas. The multipotent and oligopotent "adult" stem cells have been much more useful so far. The blog Mary Meets Dolly, on my sidebar, is a great source of information on stem cell treatments. Check it out for more info. I'll try to post some things here about stem cell research results, too. Thanks for your comment!

Leave the lights on : Gardasil, poison, and vaccine reactions

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:32:22 +0000

Colleen, Thanks for visiting and for your comment. Nobody ever said polysorbate is in ALL ice cream — the point is that it is considered safe for food use. Also, I never said Gardasil is safe. I said that the vaccine components that Ms. Janak says are toxic are NOT. Gardasil may indeed be shown to be too unsafe to be useful — that is, its risks may outweigh its benefits. But the risks are NOT from substances like polysorbate, histadine, and table salt.

Leave the lights on : Not vaccinating? Your child could die

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:25:41 +0000

HPV is not the public health hazard that, say, measles or whooping cough is. It's not spread through casual contact or through the air. So it's not exactly urgent to vaccinate against it. I'm glad I don't have to make a decision about Gardisil for a long time, at least not until it's been on the market for a lot longer and there are data about its long-term safety and effectiveness. I think the reason so many parents in this day and age are unconcerned about vaccinations is because they don't remember the days when these diseases were endemic. Your story about measles and your eyesight is a good reminder that these diseases are not only potentially deadly, but can also cause permanent disabilities.

Leave the lights on : Not vaccinating? Your child could die

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:21:17 +0000

Thanks! I've bookmarked the list to take to the pediatrician next time vaccinations are due.

Leave the lights on : Not vaccinating? Your child could die

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:55:25 +0000

Do you know of any specific vaccinations that are obtained through such gruesome means? It would be very helpful to have a list parents (including me) could take to their children's doctors.

Leave the lights on : Not vaccinating? Your child could die

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:01:47 +0000

Your link confused me at first because I thought it was related to vaccinations. Thanks for the interesting link! Quantum physics is a subject I wish I knew more about. It's hard to understand because it's so counter-intuitive. This post on vaccinations was a short piece on a big topic, so I didn't go into detail about why parents would choose not to vaccinate. Some vaccinations protect against major public health threats that spread easily; others protect against less-important diseases from a public health standpoint. I personally have a lot of faith in vaccinations (more than many other mothers do), and I will make sure my kids are up to date on Hib (and DTap and MMR, etc.), but I have to say I'm glad I don't have to make a decision about Gardisil, at least not for a long time.

Leave the lights on : Obamicons

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:39:52 +0000

The comment software (Intense Debate) keeps breaking the links. I foudn the article with this Google search: amillia 21 weeks site:dailymail.co.uk

Leave the lights on : Obamicons

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:33:29 +0000

Thanks. The comment software keeps breaking the links for some reason. Try this: www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034/The-ti...target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021034...

Leave the lights on : Obamicons

Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:30:21 +0000

You said, "I don't worship the body but consider life to be the ultimate gift from God the body being a substantial prerequisite for life." I agree with that. It's an unavoidable fact that in a pregnancy, there are TWO bodies that share each other, and TWO separate lives. There is nothing in Scripture or traditional Christian theology that says that people have total rights over their own bodies. It's a nice contemporary thought, but it's a very new one that is incompatible with revelation. The Bible alone is full of exhortations about what we are obligated to do with our bodies and what we are forbidden to do with them.

Leave the lights on : Obamicons

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:52:09 +0000

You said, "People have sovereign rights over their bodies and to deny that is blasphemy." Nonsense. We restrict people's right to do what they wish to their own body all the time. The use of certain drugs and prostitution are both illegal. We do whatever we can to stop people from committing suicide. I'm not giving these examples to argue here that they are right or wrong (that would take the post way off topic), but only to show that there is no such thing in our legal system as an absolute sovereignty over the body. (Also, it cannot be blasphemy unless you worship the body.) In the case of abortion, there is an inconvenient but immutable fact that cannot be ignored: Two lives are physically entwined in a pregnacy. This is not because of the religious right or the patriarchy or the Pope, but because of Nature. To argue that abortion is merely an issue of a woman's rights is to deny Nature. There are two people whose rights must be balanced in ethical questions having to do with pregnancy. Finally, I must note that neither of my posters above say anything about taking away a legal "right" to abortion. "Choose Life" merely urges one particular choice over another, while "Fight FOCA" opposes certain legislation. If FOCA does not pass, abortion in the U.S. will still be legal. I personally do not believe there exists an objective right to have an elective abortion, so legally "protecting" such a right is a non sequitur, but that is not what these particular icons are about.

Leave the lights on : The ethics of surrogate mothers

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:59:52 +0000

Yes, this is exactly right: adoption is good being drawn out of tragedy, while surrogacy is the conscious planning of tragedy (from the child's point of view) to serve the adults. To my way of thinking, wrong = evil. Evil is a strong word and I don't use it lightly, but I am not afraid to use it either. In religious terms, I define evil as that which is opposed to God. Good is that which is compatible with God. There are different kinds of evil -- suffering is an objective evil, yet it is not evil to suffer. Causing suffering in others with the intent to harm is always evil. Causing suffering in others unintentionally, due to ignorance or impotence for example, is not necessarily evil. Intention matters.

Leave the lights on : Scientific American on Dignitas Personae

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:53:31 +0000

For the purposes of scientific definition, scentists may well agree that human life begins when egg and sperm unite. That's a long way from saying that a fertilised egg shd have the rights accorded a human being. Saying that a new human organism begins to exist at fertilization is more than a convenience of terminology. If you accept that (a) all humans have individual identity, and (b) all humans ultimately spring from other humans, then you can deduce that (c) there must be a discrete point at which a new human identity separates fully from the parents. That point, logically, is the union of egg and sperm, because that is the point at which it begins to act biologically as a separate organism from either parent. Rights imply responsibilities: Is a mother who dies after an extended labour the victim of murder by her newborn child? How about the mother who haemorhages to death after a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? This is not an exercise in semantics: it is simply an extension of your position. That is nonsense. Murder is an intentional act. Pregnancy is a unique area of bioethics because two organisms with equal rights are biologically tied up with each other. In a natural miscarriage, the embryo or fetus is no more at fault for any potential harm experienced by the mother than the mother is at fault for the death of the embryo/fetus. Neither had any intention to harm the other. The children of the mother also have rights--what happens to those rights if for example the life of the mother is sacrificed to save an unborn child? I have not mentioned the rights of the mother in a pregnancy only because it hasn't come up yet. The rights of both embryo/fetus and mother must both be considered in a pregnancy, but there is always the simple expedient that if the mother dies, so does the baby, so generally risking the baby to save the mother is the more ethical course. You would probably be interested in the philisophical principle of double effect, which I don't have time to expound on right now. It addresses ethical behavior in cases in which a pregnacy must be terminated or the mother will surely die, as in an ectopic pregnancy. Calling a newly fertilised embryo a "handful of cells" isn't a matter of aesthetics, but of plain fact. Yes, of course it is a fact that an embryo is just a few cells. But saying that an embryo has no rights because it is a "handful of cells" is an argument based on aesthetics. You or I could be said to be just a really big handful of cells.

Leave the lights on : Scientific American on Dignitas Personae

Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:45:31 +0000

Thanks for your excellent comment and your respectful tone. Not everyone who disagrees is so civil. You said that it is contrary to common sense to view "a handful of cells" as a human being with all the attendant rights. But the view that an embryo is a separate human being is supported by science; indeed, it is modern scientific understanding of embryology that led the Church to mark fertilization as the moment of life's beginning, rather than a later point in development (as some long-ago theologians speculated). Arguments against this position typically appeal either to aesthetics (like your description of a "handful of cells") or to convenience (like your complaint that it gets in the way of "responsible parenthood"). If the Church's insistence on the dignity of all humans, even embryos, "undermines" its ethical position to non-believers, that would be a shame, but the shame is not on the Church. Catholicism has always insisted on unpopular beliefs. She is interested in teaching objective truth, not in making decisions by popular approval. Your comment is thoughtful and thought-provoking. Please feel welcome to discuss issues here any time!