Friday, March 31, 2006

Letting Someone Else Speak

Tonight I take a break from writing my own thoughts and will allow a voice from the past to speak to you. It's amazing how knowing a little history allows you to see reoccurring patterns within society and civilization as a whole and one of my greatest joys is to find quotes from great men and women of the past to address our current siutation. So, for your edification and for my own pleasure, I am happy to turn this small platform over to a great American, President Theodore Roosevelt.



"We are face to face with our destiny and we must meet it with a high and resolute courage."

"Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor."

"It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it is the way in which we use it."

"The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life."

"Our country offers the most wonderful example of democratic government on a giant scale that the world has ever seen; and the peoples of the world are watching to see whether we succeed or fail... We believe in all our heartsin democracy; in the capacity of the people to govern themselves; and we are bound to succeed, for our success means not only our own triumph, but the triumph of the cause of the rights of the people throughout the world, and the uplifting of the banner of hope for all the nations of "

"We cannot do great deeds unless we are willing to do the small things that make up the sum of greatness."

"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs... It is both foolish and wicked to teach the average man who is not well off that some wrong or injustice has been done him, and that he should hope for redress elsewhere than in his own industry, honesty, and intelligence."

"Success, the real success, does not depend upon the position you hold but upon how you carry yourself in that position. "

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic. "

Thursday, March 30, 2006

A Confluence of Streams

It's been amazing the last few days. People in an uproar over the proposed U. S. House of Representatives immigration reform bill (H. R. 4437), students taking to the streets in protest. For me it has been such a horrorshow in the true sense of the word. I almost don't know where to begin!

First, I am very, very, very disappointed in our press on how it covers what is going on. It's amazing how supporters of H. R. 4437 are called "anti-immigrant" (see for example this story in the leftist (in a bad way) OC Weekly). A political rally was called "anti-immigrant" when it was anything but. For those of us who listened to what was being said, the sentiment was that yes, America is a nation owing much to immigrants, but not ILLEGAL ALIENS (*whew*, almost wrote "immigrants"). Yet they get a pass. In today's Union Tribune there is a cartoon in the editorial section showing an American flag with a magnifying glass help up to one of the stripes. There you see small stick figures spelling out "immigrants". Again, I don't hear anyone on my side of the fence (and what a strange side I have, which you would know if you have been keeping up with all my posts) say "We hate immigrants. Kick them all out!" Shame, shame, shame on you self-righteous media folks. Neutral? Just reporting the facts? Bah! I read three newspapers each day and about a dozen magazines each week (not counting what I scan on the Web) and you all sounds like you are simply taking each others' copy, shifting around a few words, slapping on a slightly different title and congratulating yourselves on how you are "informing" the masses. Please, we're not all that stupid. I have yet to read anywhere a thoughtful explanation of your arguments, only how "mean" those of us who think our country is worth protecting are and that if we someone DID remove the illegal aliens nothing in this country would get done. Boloney (or is it bologna?). Here I place as much blame on President Bush as I do the L. A. Times. The constant repetitions of "They are doing jobs that American's won't do" is a crock. Who did that work BEFORE the problem became such a large one? Those expelling that line should at least finish it with an honest appraisal such as "They are doing jobs that Americans won't do for below living wage." At least THAT statement would refect reality and not just be political spin. But then they say "Why, it would drive up prices. Lettuce would cost $5 a head" (I heard this from an illegal alien advocate on the radio). Actually, labor costs are only a tiny fraction of the total cost of food production. As for overall cost to the federal government (and a comparison of how much taxes illegal aliens pay verses how much they take out of the system) can be found here. Just to give you a sampling, here in California the state spends over $8000 per child in school. Now ask yourself this question: With a marginal state tax of 9.3% on every dollar you make over $32,000, how much do you have to pay in state taxes to support one child with the taxes you pay? And that is ignoring all of the other things the state has to try to do with the money it takes in. And as for what it does to wages, well, the impact on the market for wage earners will remain depressed. It's sad that many blue-collar jobs today are no longer sufficient to place those workers in the middle class. The affect on the low end is similar to what is happening to the upper end of salaried workers due to the effects of off-shoring.

Okay, enough on illegal immigrants. I mentioned a confluence and here it is. My other pain lately has been over education. It's amazing what has been happening with the student walkouts supposedly in opposition to H. R. 4437. I've been listening to interviews of the students who have participated in the demonstrations on several different stations and here are some observations and questions I have for you folks:

First, many students interviewed said they teachers told them to join the protest against the House resolution. Second, when asked what they were protesting, in over 30 interviews not one student could accurately say what it was in the resolution they were protesting. One particularly painful exchange was as followings:

Q: Why are you here instead of in school?
A: Because I don't want my family to get deported.
Q: When did your parents come to the United States?
A: I think it was 1975 or 1976.
Q: So you were born here?
A: Yeah.
Q: Were your brothers and sisters born here?
A: Yeah.
Q: [I thought this was quite slick] So when did your parents become U. S. citizens?
A: 1985

Geeze. Other commonly hear statements were "We have a right to be here" and "We pay taxes, we should get to stay and vote".

Okay, this is for you who claim to be teachers... if you ARE telling kids to protest, for heaven's sake at least tell them some FACTS so they don't come across as idiots when asked. Not one interviewed could tell the questioners what the H. R. meant nor how laws get made in this country. These are high school students and college students, haven't they learned anything (or, given the state of education these days, I might rightfully ask if they have been taught anything)? Of course, this makes the assumption they really are they to protest something. From the description of the atmosphere it sounded as if the vast majority were simply there to skip school. Let's not forget the exchange between L. A. Mayor Villaraigosa and the protesting students where after explaining how he supported them said that their voices had been heard, he stands with them, and now it was time to return to school the students chanted "Hell no, we won't go!"

Really? I wonder if they will at least get to claim their part in the protect under "Civic Participation" in their applications to Harvard. But of course, this just might get them in...

Friday, March 24, 2006

Jesus Christ, Illegal Alien?

I almost succumbed to the California mindset and titled this post "Jesus Christ, Illegal Immigrant". Luckily my solid conservative genes kicked in and I caught myself. When the ruckus started a few years ago and I began to notice that the press was substituting the words "undocumented immigrant" for "illegal alien" I took a pledge then and there to always say "illegal alien". Now, about four years of left-leaning media saturation almost brought me down. The fact that most media outlets have dropped the "illegal" aspect made me think that I would be okay in changing "alien" for "immigrant". Subtle. Of course, the Devil took on the form of what the Scriptures call the most subtle of animals (Genesis 3:1 for you KJVers, or you can use other translations of the Hebrew such as "cunning" if you prefer say ESV). Now, being the conservative that I am I believe in standing for the American version of "God, King, and Country" but I still get a sharp pain in the pit of my stomach when politicians try to pepper their speeches with religious references because, let's face it, most have at best a facile understanding of the Bible. Hence the latest speech given by Mrs Clinton (or is it Ms Clinton, or Ms Rodham? I can't keep these kinds of things straight) on the issue of the recent U. S. House of Representatives bill concerning the status illegal aliens, where the junior senator from New York made the astonishing statement that would make criminals of the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus Himself! I have read the speech and tried to create logic diagrams of her "argument" and for the life of me I just don't see it. Thinking I may have missed something in the actual historical context I search through my rather extensive theological holdings and could find nothing that placed either the story of the Good Samaritan or anything of the facts surrounding the life of Christ into the current framework of the illegal alien debate. Now I know Bill Clinton did the same thing with some of his various invocation of religious imagery, but at least the man sounded like he meant it. If you listened to her give the speech you know what I mean... a complete lack of emotion or even the slightest hint of conviction in what she was saying displayed with her voice. While this does not take away from any argument, I think a speaker should at least convey something of the passion they feel when speaking on such a charged topic.

Will politicians on both sides of the spectrum PLEASE stop trying to bolster their support by the intonation of Biblical references? I distrust more than half of the so-called trained clergy out there, what makes politicians with no theological training believe that I am going to think "Why, they must be alright on this issue, they said 'Jesus' in their speech!" Perhaps this is what most Americans do these days... if so, God help us! I have the same words for the self-important actors attempting to speak with authority on political topics as I do for politicians using religion... "Shut up already!"

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Our Annual *NOT* Sideways Trip

Now that the car is unloaded, dinner finished (an excellent home-made pasta dish) and about half a bottle of Nebbiolo down it's time to catch the blog up to date. Long before the movie Sideways Pookie and I have made an annual trip up the coast to do some wine tasting. While we have done the Napa/Sonoma rounds, I think I enjoy the wineries in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties more than the more celebrated places further north. Over two days we visited 10 wineries and tasted a little over 80 wines (and even a couple of beers... it was Saint Patrick's Day weekend after all).

After waking up a little after 4 AM on Friday, we hopped in the car and headed to our destination, the wineries around Los Olivos. Our first stop was at Bridlewood Winery, one of the most beautiful properties in the area. Truth be told, over the years I have found their wines inconsistent. This year's tastings though found all they presented very solid, enjoyable wines. We left with several bottles of the 2002 Estate Syrah and their Vinter's Selection Viognier. Next up was my personal favorite, Brander Vineyards. One of the original vineyards of the Santa Ynez Valley, Brander had never let me down with their product and this year proved no exception. They have just released their wonderful Cuvee Natalie as well as their well regarded 2005 Sauvignon Blanc. I was also happily taken with their 2004 Merlot. I used to hate Merlots, but that was before I tasted those of the central coast. To me, most Merlots are watery and have no "legs". My first trip to central coast showed me there was hope for these and I was taken enough with Brander's that I bought a few bottles of it (so if you like Merlot, come on over). We added to our Brander list a couple of bottles of Cuvee Nicolas and we were ready to go (that completed our first case). We asked Nancy for some place off the beaten path to try and she said we should try Beckmen Vineyards. We took her advice and slowly, carefully made our way to Beckmen (amazing how fast wine tasting affects you when you haven't eaten for almost 6 hours). Beckmen's practices bio-dynamic farming and they have several maps in the tasting room to show you how they put their philosophy into practice. Their wines tend to be "Rhone style" which I truly enjoy. We came away with a few bottles of their tasty 2004 Grenache and a wonderfully blended 2004 Cuvee Le Bec. By this time we really needed something to soak up the wine. The choice was to go to the restaurant featured in Sideways (NOT!, though the food really is fantastic I just could not stand to hear one more "Oh it's just like in 'Sideways'" comment) or to a fine little dining spot just around the corner from Los Olivos cafe, this one NOT featured in Sideways, Patrick's Side Street Cafe. Their open face prime sandwich really hit the spot and after about an hour slowly savoring a fine lunch we were ready to go back out into the vineyards. We went by the tasting room of Fess Parker Winery where last time we got to spend a few minutes in the presence of Fess Parker himself (hey, if you grew up on Disney's Davy Crockett it would be a big deal to you too), and finally got to our last desination, Gainey Vineyard. Gainey has one of the best spots in the central coast to relax with a glass of wine and are known for their events held throughout the year. This year presented us with some difficult decisions on what to buy (we were running out of room and we still had Paso Robles to go), but after much agonizing we wound up with their bright Sauvignon Blanc and their just newly released Riesling (so new it's not up yet on their Web site).

By this time we had tasted about 45 wines and felt it was time to head to the hotel. After a nice little 90 minute nap it was time for dinner. We dressed and decided to head into Santa Barbara. Unfortunately CHP had different plans. It seems there was a car jacking in SLO resulting in a 70 mile chase down the 101 resulting the death of the car jacker. CHP had closed off 101, so we decided not to be reverse snobs and head to The Hitching Post where we were treated to a choice steak dinner and another sampling of local wines (as was stated in the movie this place does have its own label). After salad, soup, duck, steak, and a healthy slice of key lime pie (and a smattering of their own wine) it was time to head back to the hotel and tuck in for the night. Unfortunately for me, I discovered the new Doctor Who series on Sci-Fi and was mesmerized by it (in case you don't know, my home does not have television coming to it... a conscious decision made many years ago). I am not quite sure what I think about it yet, will probably have to wait and buy the series and watch it before making my decision. Only after watch the first two episodes was I able to fall asleep.

Saturday morning took up up 101 to Paso Robles. We went first to the only "big" winery on our trip, Meridian Vineyards. As luck would have it, we arrived during the 14th annual Paso Robles Zinfandel Festival, so in addition to their normal tasting they were offering barrel draws of their new Zins along with some scrumpy chocolates. After tasting some excellent wines and chocolates, we left with a few bottles of their limited release Paso Robles Syrah (some of their last bottles) and their just released limited edition 2004 Sangiovese. We next went to a very nice property that specializes in Italian style wines, the Arciero Family Estates, home of EOS wines. This is one of the most "butch" wineries, where else can you see a formula one racing car on the tasting grounds. We tasted some nice Italian style wines and walked off with some bottles of their 2004 Vin Rose and a fantastic blend under their Novella label called Synergy. From here it was just a short hop, skip, and slightly erratic drive to my favorite Italian style wine maker, Martin Weyrich where we dined on some delicious free BBQ while tasting some fantastic wines. By the time we were done we left with a case that included the aforementioned Nebbiolo and a "you gotta get some" Insieme, a great blend of seven different grapes in lip-smackin' proportion. After getting quite full on smoked meat and some of the finest red wine I had that day, we jumped across the 101 to Grey Wolf Cellars. Unfortunately we met up with our first wine tour bus and had to suffer several drunk people. Luckily, having to navigate through the inebriated masses didn't take away from the nice wines and BBQ tri-tip we tasted. After about 30 minutes we came away with a few bottles of their well-balanced 2003 Meritage and their 2003 Roussanne. We figured we had time for one more winery and we decided to try the "Dam [sic] fine wines" of Castoro Cellars. Unfortunately we encountered the largest congregation of wine tasting tours (perhaps due to the fact that their tasting sheet allowed 15 wines for sampling). We tried 13 (including a nice little port), but left with two very nice fruit-forward wines, a Petite Sirah and a fantastic little wine they call Primitivo.

By now it was back to the hotel in Buellton. After a quick stop in SLO, we went back to the hotel and took a short nap. That night we had dinner at a nice little restaurant. By now we were full of wine so we sampled their beers (simple but nice) and after a filling dinner retired back to the hotel.

That takes us up to this morning. After a long but uneventful drive back to San Diego and spending an hour at the gym, I now see that my glass wine, like my evening entry, is at an end. Now, I just have to think up how to get all of you over here to try them out...

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Edyamuhkation

Ripped from the headlines of today's San Diego Tribune: CSU freshmen fail proficiency goal. According to the article more than half the freshmen in the state's largest public university system were academically unprepared this year. In fact, only 45% were "fully prepared" in both math and English. At Cal State San Marcos, of the 659 freshmen admitted in fall 2004, 63% needed remedial education in either math or English or both! Notice what this says, that 63% of those admitted, that is, they got in. Even though they were not prepared in the two most fundamental subjects they were allowed to enter the Cal State system. My question to you dear readers is "Why?" I just do not see the justification. Let me be frank, a college education is not due anyone but is something that must be earned. Yes, I will admit that I am a bit of an elitist but I don't see a problem with being one. I believe in earned privilege, that is, if you meet the criteria you are allowed to attend. I didn't grow up with any of the advantages that even most of the poor in San Diego have. Neither of my parents went to college. I went to the same rural high school they attended in the Missouri section of the Ozarks (yes, I am a hillbilly). The first house I remember didn't have running water and you could see the ground between the cracks in the floor. We didn't have a city paper, didn't have a town library (the elementary school library consisted of six book carts, one for each grade and even that was inaccessible 4 months out of the year). Growing up we probably had less than 20 books in the house (and several of those were different translations of the Bible). There was no Electric Company or Sesame Street and certainly no Discovery Channel or History Channel (heck, no cable television, we got CBS and NBC and on stormy days we picked up an ABC signal bounce). I was the first person in our extended family to go to college (my sister was the second). Not only did we go, we excelled (my sister graduated with a 4.0 majoring in business administration while I completed work in the areas of mathematics and computer science through the doctoral level). Our parents never pushed us to go to college, they couldn't economically support us, but they did emotionally and spiritually support us. I worked two and sometimes three jobs to put myself through the various colleges I attended. So please people, stop with the excuses.

It's interesting how people cry that our educational system needs more money, that we have too few teachers for so many students. Let's see, if 55% are not prepared perhaps that is one place to start looking. Just for fun take a class schedule, turn to the math and English offerings, and count the number of sections offered that are below the minimum level for college credit. Compare that number with the total number of sections offered for all courses that count toward a major in those areas (you may get quite a shock). Just think of the money and hours that are poured into classes whose sole purpose is to prepare students to take college-level classes (which I thought was one of the purposes of high school for those intending to go to college).

If we combine the information in this report with all those letters to the editor of people crying about our precious high school students being required to pass an exit exam to obtain their high school diploma (and for those of you not in California this simply amounts to the student showing they can adequately demonstrate eight grade math skills and show proficiency in English equivalent to that taught in the tenth grade) we get a sorry picture of what education is in our state. God help us.

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Another Quiz

Actually, I have been told this before by other people.


You scored as Indiana Jones. Indiana Jones is an archaeologist/adventurer with an unquenchable love for danger and excitement. He travels the globe in search of historical relics. He loves travel, excitement, and a good archaeological discovery. He hates Nazis and snakes, perhaps to the same degree. He always brings along his trusty whip and fedora. He's tough, cool, and dedicated. He relies on both brains and brawn to get him out of trouble and into it.

Indiana Jones

78%

Neo, the "One"

67%

Lara Croft

63%

William Wallace

63%

James Bond, Agent 007

58%

Batman, the Dark Knight

54%

Captain Jack Sparrow

54%

El Zorro

50%

Maximus

46%

The Amazing Spider-Man

46%

The Terminator

38%

Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com

Friday, March 10, 2006

Ramblings On Abortion, Final Thoughts

Well, it's time to finish (for now) my thoughts on the topic of abortion. I have yet to find any arguments that undo my initial logical construction showing how abortion is murder. It's simply a matter of logic. However, logic takes you only so far in real life. In my library I have a series of lectures by Professor Ronald Nash on philosophy and Christian apologetics. In a section addressing the logical problems that evil proposes to the Christian world view, after showing how many of the problems can be refuted using the tools of logic, Professor Nash says something to the effect of "When you are personally faced with problems of enormous evil in the world, you shouldn't turn to a philosopher to help you through it." What he means is that when you are emotionally distressed, knowing that a logical syllogism can "explain" the "why" doesn't do anything for the honest heart-wrenching feelings that you are experiencing. In the first three postings I leaned very hard on the logic and scientific facts that, to my mind show abortion to be wrong. These would not help me in dealing with say a rape victim who is contemplating an abortion. What that person needs is someone who will listen, who will show compassion and honestly try to help her and her family in this situation. That being said, we must make sure that we do not completely throw out logic to make way for emotion. Yes, someone was violated, a terrible act, but it does not follow that the wrong of rape can be countered with the wrong of murder (that in and of itself would take several postings, but to boil it down to what I am sure everyone has heard, "Two wrongs don't make a right"). As for the general argument pro-abortionists make of a woman's "right" to choose to have an abortion (the "It's my body, I can do with it as I so choose" position), how any anyone hold that position when it comes to taking the life of another human being? Privacy arguments do not help here either since wrongs done in private do not become rights. Your right to act for your own benefit ends at least at the point it places the life of another at risk, yet this is exactly the situation for elective abortion. Cases of rape and incest are one thing, but simply wanting to end a life just because you don't want the child is the weakest reason to have abortion.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Work and Fulfillment

My current "business related" book is John Maxwell's The 360 Degree Leader. In it Maxwell shows how 99% of all leadership in most organizations takes place in the middle, not the top, and how people in the middle who want to be considered leaders have to "lead up", "lead across", and "lead down" (interesting how people only view leadership as from the top down). A section I want to share is entitled "How to be fulfilled in the middle of the pack". The short answer is "learn to see the big picture", but rather than just leave it like that Maxwell gives the following hints:

  • Develop strong relationships with key people. "It's more important to get along with people than to get ahread of them"

  • Define a win in terms of teamwork. Here Maxwell quotes former basketball coach John Wooden "The main ingredient of stardom is the rest of the team."

  • Engage in continual communications. This includes communicating UP the chain as well as down.

  • Gain experience and maturity. "Maturity doesn't come with age. It begins with the acceptance of responsibility."

  • Put the team above your personal success. Leadership is about helping others to win.


  • Interestingly enough, this looks pretty much how a good familial relationship should be run. You and your partner/wife/husband/children are a team, a single unit. The strength of that unit rests in the relationships you have one with another. You win as a family, not just as individuals (second person plural pronoun here folks). As part of a family you have responsibilities to the other members in the family. Hmmm... looks like Maxwell provides not just good business advice, but he makes a pretty good "Dr. Laura" as well.

    Saturday, March 04, 2006

    Fun With Quizes

    My friend Chris just sent me a fun little quiz to take. I thought I would share the results:

    You scored as Babylon 5 (Babylon 5). The universe is erupting into war and your government picks the wrong side. How much worse could things get? It doesn't matter, because no matter what you have your friends and you'll do the right thing. In the end that will be all that matters. Now if only the Psi Cops would leave you alone.

    Babylon 5 (Babylon 5)

    81%

    Millennium Falcon (Star Wars)

    81%

    Enterprise D (Star Trek)

    81%

    Galactica (Battlestar: Galactica)

    75%

    Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix)

    69%

    Moya (Farscape)

    63%

    Serenity (Firefly)

    63%

    FBI's X-Files Division (The X-Files)

    56%

    Andromeda Ascendant (Andromeda)

    50%

    Deep Space Nine (Star Trek)

    50%

    SG-1 (Stargate)

    44%

    Bebop (Cowboy Bebop)

    31%

    Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics)
    created with QuizFarm.com

    Ramblings On Abortion, Part Three

    Okay, where were we? Oh yes, examining the key question to the abortion debate and the options avaiable (or, to sound fancy, applying our epistemology to the ontology of the fetus). So, if the fetus is an innocent human being, then based on the syllogism displayed in the first posting on abortion we must conclude that abortion is murder and if our moral values place murder in the "naughty" column then it must be avoided at all costs. So let's take a look at this idea of the fetus as a human being (I am assuming that people do not have a problem with me dropping the "innocent" part for now, so if you do please email me so we can discuss it).

    In Roe v Wade the Supreme Court, in thinking it was taking a neutral position, said that they were not going to address whether or not the fetus was a human being. What is amazing to me is that these supposedly sharp folks couldn't see (or perhaps didn't want to see) that they really did. By allowing abortion, they in effect said that human life does not begin at conception, that the fetus is not a human being and thus can be removed/extracted/aborted/killed. I have never understood how people cannot see that just because they claim neutrality it does not mean they are neutral. Let me be as clear and as blunt as possible: Human life begins at conception. Period. Done. Next topic. What, you don't accept my word that it is? You want me to provide an argument for something that I see is as clear as crystal? (Hey, calm down, just being a little facetious). For me, the case of a fetus being a human being can be made on the following facts:

    Fact: Let's look at a little basic genetics. Each human being has, to the best of our knowledge, a unique set of 46 chromosomes contining the genetic code for that person (forgive the mix of "human being" with "person", I know some people have problems with this but I promise to address it in a later post). If you stayed awake in class, you recall that 23 of come from the father's sperm and 23 come from the ovum and they combine to create a new and unique zygote. This tiny little creature has all of the genetic information that a fully developed person has. This isn't simply a blob of tissue, it is a completely new creature.

    Fact: Because it is a new creature, the fetus in the mother's womb cannot be considered "part" of the mother. In fact, if you follow this line of thinking (that the fetus is simply part of the mother's body) then you get some startling conclusions, such as, the mother has will have four legs, four arms, two heads, and in about half of the cases both a penis and a vagina. When you also take into consideration that often the bloodtype of the fetus is different from the mother as well as the fact that fertilized ova maintain their characteristics regardless of where they incubate (a fertilized ovum from a black couple that is implanted in a white woman will become a black baby), it is pretty clear to see that the fetus isn't simply an extention of the mother.

    Fact: The development requirements for a fetus as the same as those of a baby (or for a human at any stage of development): food, water, air, and time. This leads to certain problematic issues for those who want to maintain that the difference between a fetus and "human being" is one of development, for going down that path we have to conclude that we are NEVER really human beings since there is always some level of development occurring.

    The conclusion is pretty easy to make: The union of a sperm with an ovum causes the creation of new human being. This human being, which at the time of union we call a zygote, if given time, air, and nourishment will be born (even though I disagree with this usage I will call this) a baby. Given time, air, and nourishment this baby will grow into a toddler, then a teenage (the argument against being a human being is stronger here than at conception IMHO), then an adult, etc. Aha! (you might say "This fetus is only a 'potential' human being"... but let's think seriously about this folks, even a potential human being must be an actual something in order to be a potential human being. What is it? Let's not confuse development and function with ontology. There are no "potential human beings" just as there are no "potential cats". All human beings are actual. We might be potential NBA stars (like my nephew Justin) or potential CEOs (me, me, me), but it's the functioning that is potential, the "being" is actual. If you disagree, write me, for even I your humble blogger have the potential to be mistaken.