Youth Politics

Embryonic stem cell research is a highly debated topic, no doubt about it. There are arguments on both sides that I support, however there are also plenty of ridiculous arguments for and against the research. Why am I bringing this up now? Bush, while his administration did allow for some stem cell research, imposed limits which severely impacted the progress of such research. Obama hopes to reverse these limits and will be announcing it sometime this week. What I want to do is first clear up the facts.

Embryonic stem cells are basically blueprint cells; they are cells which can become any other cell in the body. There are actually several kinds of such cells. There are adult stem cells and younger stem cells found in fluids in the placenta. However, embryonic stem cells are the easiest to work with and as such are most needed by scientists in order to further discoveries. The hope is that we can control what these cells turn into, and then use this technology to cure diseases such as Alzheimer’s (which kills off brain cells).

We also know that our only way of obtaining these embryonic stem cells is by essentially destroying the embryo itself. In the eyes of many, this is seen as equivalent to killing a human life. Such is the dilemma then: we can potentially cure life threatening diseases but only by killing innocent lives. I’d have to say that this is a fairly solid argument, and one that’s not easily overcome.

One such challenge to the killing of human life is that the embryo would have been thrown away anyway at an abortion clinic. Now, given the choice of completely throwing away the life and using it in order to further research, I’d pick research. However, you have to take into account views on abortion. Those who believe abortions are murder will obviously not condone abortions in the first place and thus this line of debate is completely nullified. But we have to think realistically, not ideally. Assuming abortions will not be outlawed for a while, wouldn’t it be better to use the embryos for research rather than throwing them away?

The argument I don’t like that pro-stem cell research proponents use is that the killing of an embryo is not killing life. I would have to disagree. I’ll use this definition of life as my example: (source: http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm)

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

Given this definition, life would begin as soon as the egg and the sperm unite. An embryo is quite organized, it acquires materials and energy, it responds to its environment, it obviously reproduces, and it can adapt. It may be limited in its adaptation skills and its environmental responses, but they are there nonetheless. Thus, unless someone can convince me otherwise, the embryo is a life.

Can we justify the killing of life in order to save lives? When starting a business, you can risk taking a loss before making (hopefully) significant gains. Can we do the same with human lives? Can we take losses in order to possibly make future gains? Please let me know what you think.

Is everyone entitled to vote? The simple answer is, no. The more complicated and more correct answer is, it depends. In one of my earlier posts entitled Make Your Own Decisions, Vote!, I discuss how I believe it is not only your right but your responsibility to vote. Now however, I want to talk about who should actually vote and who I don’t ever want to see at voting booths.

In the United States, persons under the age of 18 are not allowed to vote officials into public office. The question is why. Why are we putting an age limit here? Clearly, it’s because we don’t feel that those under the age of 18 understand the political system enough to have a valid opinion. I certainly wouldn’t want a four year old determining the fate of this country? I’m sure at least most of you would agree with that. Similarly, a baby of not even a year old couldn’t possible decide who to vote for, much less even know what it means to do anything except eat, sleep, and cry. I could make a similar argument for those who just became teenagers: nothing but eating, sleeping, and crying, am I right?

So if our age limit has to do with who we believe could even make a rational choice, then is it fair that those who still can’t make rational decisions past the age of 18 are still allowed to vote? Does that even make sense? Do I want a complete idiot who is oblivious to all things politics have a stab at changing the direction of this country? What if someone lapses into a coma at the age of ten and wakes up in their thirties? Do they still have every right to vote?

Criminals are denied the right to vote. This makes sense, as society has already determined that to commit a crime, you already must be thinking irrationally. Let’s not even bring up the fact that you’d probably hate the government for locking you up anyway. It’s further proof that the people we do not want to have voting are the ones who are incapable of thinking rationally.

However, being under the age of 18 and committing crimes are not the only criteria for not being capable of rational thinking. I’m sure you’ve met some people (or a lot of people!) who you deem ill-qualified to actually vote, either because they would be ignorant of who to vote for or because what they think goes beyond stupidity. And no, I’m not going to label liberal thinking nor conservative thinking as stupid, although there are certain aspects of both that astound me with their respective stupidities…

Anyway, I don’t think EVERYONE should vote. People who have no idea what’s going on… I don’t think should vote. But that’s just me. I mean, it wouldn’t make sense for them to. Generally the people who don’t know what’s going on wouldn’t really care to vote regardless. There’s also the people who do care, but they’re just plain wrong. I’d love NOT to see them at the voting tables, but alas you can’t just command stupid people not to vote. Or can you….

Torture is always an unsettling subject. No one likes torture. Okay, that might be a lie, but chances are most people are not in favor of being tortured or witnessing suffering. I know for a fact that I do not want American soldiers abroad being tortured. However, there seems to be a double standard when it comes to the US torturing war criminals.

It’s not REALLY a double-standard, but it feels a lot like one. The problem is we do not want our soldiers to be tortured, yet they are anyway. If the United States were to stop torturing suspected terrorists, would other countries stop torturing United States militants? The answer is clearly no, so there’s a really thin line between setting an example and treating others the way they treat you.

The one problem I have with torture is the fact that we are keeping SUSPECTED terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Obviously I’m hinting at the fact that not all of the people kept there are necessarily terrorists, and furthermore, none of them have been convicted of being a terrorist as they have not been taken to court. Torturing actual terrorists? Fine. Torturing innocent people? Seems bad to me.

Obama pledged to have Guantanamo Bay shut down within his first 100 days of office. Now people are pissed off that he may not be able to uphold that campaign promise. Honestly, he shouldn’t have made such a promise in the first place. It’s sort of like Bush the First’s, “read my lips, no new taxes” clause. You can’t honestly expect anyone to uphold such a promise can you? Closing Guantanamo Bay is tricky business, and the fact of the matter is there are actual terrorists being held there.

The humanity of torture is always in question. The term “cruel and unusual punishment” always comes to mind. The show 24 is actually battling this very same dilemma and torture is now being questioned as an interrogation technique. I’m gonna be honest here, it works. There is no doubt in my mind that torture produces results. It may be ugly, but this wouldn’t even be up for debate if torture was not worth it.

Can torture be justified when the person being tortured has committed heinous crimes? Can it be justified when innocents may be subject to the very same?

I don’t oppose the fact that ideas can be evil. If someone came up with an idea to kill lots of innocent people for absolutely no purpose, I would consider that idea to be evil. I’m just stating my definition of what evil can possibly mean. How then is socialism evil?

Socialism is the economic idea that the government would maintain the central source of power and should nationalize sectors of the economy to promote an even and fair distribution of wealth. This idea in and of itself does not sound like an evil idea. Yet, many people detest socialism and even use it as an insult. Sure some people are extremely proud of the capitalistic view, but that does not mean that socialism is necessarily evil. There’s a difference between disagreeing with an idea and thinking that an idea is evil or just plain wrong.

The problem is that so many associate socialism with communism, and in the United States at least, communism is looked down upon due to our dealings with the Russians, Cuba, and even China during the Cold War. Communist countries have, in general, had poor human rights records for instance. Other critics say that political and economic freedoms are suppressed and thus freedoms are taken away. As you may know the United States was founded on freedom, and a socialist model simply wouldn’t do. This is why the mere thought of socialism is looked down upon.

This doesn’t have to be true in other countries however. If a country and its populace agree to such an economic and political policy then so be it. Socialism itself isn’t what is evil, it is what people do with that idea that can be so harmful. For example, totalitarian governments use it as a way to gain power and have control over their people.

There are of course plenty of disagreements on which policy is better, As far as my stance, I know that I don’t consider socialism an evil in the world. I keep that in mind when I express my opinion. I do think it’s quite unrealistic, in the sense that power corrupts too easily, but that’s just how I see it.

Can a socialist society work? And what would have to be done for such a society to function? Can it be done with relatively little impact on personal freedoms? What do you think?

Comments are more than welcome!

Here’s a question I’ve been pondering lately:

Should the government protect us from ourselves?

I actually asked this very question on Twitter, and the responses were quite mixed. I sort of expected a clear-cut winner, but that was not the case.

If the government were to protect us from ourselves, it would mean that society could not undermine it’s own country, even if it wanted to. But what does this imply? This would imply that the government no longer represents its people’s wishes. That seems bad to me.

On the flip side, if the government did not go against the common word, the people would end up destroying the nation (again, assuming that was society’s intent). We already know that majority rule is not always ideal, and so it would be wrong to allow the majority to destroy a nation against the will of the minority. Maybe you disagree with me here, but that’s how I see it.

This is a fundamental question I think, because your viewpoint here determines what you want and do not want the government to be able to do. Those who strongly believe in the will of the people would argue that the government has no choice but to listen to the people’s demands, even if that demand is the destruction of the government/nation. Those who believe that people sometimes do not know what is best would argue that the government has the right to tell them what is right and what is wrong. I… am torn.

To me it seems to be a case-by-case basis matter. Sometimes I do want popular vote to matter, and other times I want the government to know what is best, especially since the people can never know all the facts or even pretend to. But where do we draw the line? How do we figure out what the government should determine and what the people should determine? At what point should the government stop even indirectly representing the majority? Should the government ever stop representing the majority of its people at all?

Comments would be greatly appreciated.

Oh, if you’d like to have my blog’s posts delivered to you via email, that is now available at the top of the sidebar.