Be his lawfully wedded gay husband (or else)!

Just a brief quote before bed. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council writes:

Last week the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the same court that imposed "gay marriage" on Massachusetts' citizens last year) rejected the final argument...

I have a humorous mental image of old people in black robes lasso-ing citizens on the street and forcing them to marry people of their own gender.

Are embryos persons?

I've double-posted this to Fake Barn Country. I've been blogging about stem cell research recently, and last week I expressed some sort of standard derision at the idea that leftover embryos from IVF have the moral significance of persons. I pointed out that President Bush & co. do not seem to have a problem with the widespread destruction of leftover embryos, so it's inconsistent of them to oppose research on them instead. An anonymous internet-user asked the following in the comments thread:

Can someone explain to me why, exactly, it is so obviously absurd to grant human rights to a human embryo? I've had people explain this by means of reiteration, as though mantric repetition would prove persuasive, but it hasn't. I don't hold that view, but I'm at a loss for any really good reason why I can reject it. President Bush's inconsistency on this is, quite frankly, irrelevant. We don't oppose him when we agree with him simply because he's inconsistent; we oppose him because we disagree with him. So, leaving ad hominem arguments and mantric repetition behind, can someone explain to me why, exactly, an embryo is so obviously not a candidate for moral consideration?

I think that this is a very important question, and deserves more exposure than it'd be likely to get deep down in a comments thread on my blogspot blog, so I thought I'd bring it up as a new post. Admittedly, I haven't yet thought this one through as rigorously as I might like. So, following are a few considerations I think are relevant. I'd like to see discussion of these, and more considerations on both sides as well.

• The most important argument for me against the personhood of embryos relies on a burdon of proof sort of move: why should we think they're persons? And no response to that question seems compelling. Every instance I've encountered of an argument from "potential to become a person" seems to be very metaphysically confused. And I really haven't seen many other arguments.
• Embryos are not sentient. They have no experiences, and there's "nothing that it is like" to be an embryo. One can make arguments to this effect, if need be, but for now I'll assume that we agree about this claim.
• Destroying an embryo hurts no one. This is formally question-begging, but it seems to me at least to be obviously true.
• Here's an attempt to turn my ad hominem argument into an argument on the merits of the view: President Bush & co. are not morally concerned about the widespread practice of fertilizing many more eggs than a given couple needs, and destroying leftover embryos, and they're right not to be concerned about this morally innocent practice. If embryos were persons, they would not be right about the acceptability of this practice. Therefore, embryos are not persons.

I'm feeling a little tentative about all of this, so I'd like more thoughts from others.

Anti-Gerrymandering Bill

There's a nice editorial in today's New York Times about an anti-gerrymandering bill in Congress, sponsored by John Tanner, a Representative from Tennessee. It sounds like just the sort of thing that could have a long-term positive impact in U.S. Politics, and consequently, the world. And sadly, it sounds like just the sort of thing that doesn't have a prayer. Well, it has one from me, anyway. Links:

• NYT editorial
• Tanner's press release
• Official bill information from Congress (including bill text)

Good news in Texas Politics

Here's a piece of genuine good news from the Texas Legislature. They've been working hard on SB 6, a bill that would reformulate child protective services in Texas. Houston Chronicle coverage of the bill is here. It's been the focus of some controversy in Austin, and the House and Senate were having difficulty reconciling their respective versions of the bill. One key difference was a ban in the House version on homosexual and bisexuals as foster parents. The amendment, proposed by Robert Talton (R-Pasadena), is quoted in the House journal for April 19 (scroll about 3/4 of the way down, or search for "Amendment 60"). The language is pretty shocking. Here's the amendment, which was passed by the Texas House:

Sec. 264.1064. FOSTER PARENT DISQUALIFICATION. (a) The department shall require an applicant who is applying to serve as a foster parent or a foster parent whose performance is being evaluated by the department to state whether the applicant or foster parent is homosexual or bisexual. (b)If the applicant or foster parent states that the applicant or foster parent is homosexual or bisexual, the department may not: (1) allow the applicant to serve as a foster parent; (2) place a child with the foster parent; or (3) allow a child to remain in foster care with the foster parent. (c) Notwithstanding an applicant's or foster parent's statement that the applicant or foster parent is not homosexual or bisexual, if the department determines after a reasonable investigation that an applicant or a foster parent is homosexual or bisexual, the department may not: (1) allow the applicant to serve as a foster parent; (2) place a child with the foster parent; or (3) allow a child to remain in foster care with the foster parent.

This would prohibit even bisexuals who are in monogamous heterosexual marriages from adopting children -- or from keeping children that they have adopted. Personally, I'll stand up for the right of a single person, or a homosexual couple, to adopt children. I know that this is somewhat controversial. But I don't think it's controversial that a person who is married, who also happens to be attracted to people of his own gender, can be a very good parent. To deny this is an even worse sort of bigotry than I'm used to seeing, even in Texas Republican politics. If you scroll down in those House journal records, you can read the debate about the amendment -- almost completely about procedural issues having to do with how much the bill would cost. Apparently, it takes a lot of millions of dollars to thoroughly investigate into foster parents' and potential foster parents' sexual preferences! Happily, the amendment, which did not go into the Senate version, didn't go into the conference committee version either. So if the bill passes, it will pass without the homosexual and bisexual adoption ban.

New England Drivers are the Worst

Rhode Island drivers are the most clueless. Massachusetts comes in second. Thanks to Heidi for the link.

What's wrong with Bush's stem cell policy

The New York Times carried an editorial yesterday criticizing President Bush for his firm opposition to the Congressional movement to use leftover human embryos from IVF that would otherwise be discarded for scientific research. It argues that he is inappropriately imposing his own moral views onto America at large.

His actions are based on strong religious beliefs on the part of some conservative Christians, and presumably the president himself. Such convictions deserve respect, but it is wrong to impose them on this pluralistic nation.

Although I'm about as opposed to the President on this particular policy issue as it's possible to be, I think that the Times's criticism is dead wrong. The problem isn't that the President is imposing moral views that are outside the American mainstream (although of course he is). The problem is that he's imposing moral views that are short-sighted, confused, and just plain wrong. As I've focused on recently, the President's position is either inconsistent or grossly morally irresponsible (or both). And it's also just implausible -- the Times editorial got this part right:

The president's policy is based on the belief that all embryos, even the days-old, microscopic form used to derive stem cells in a laboratory dish, should be treated as emerging human life and protected from harm. This seems an extreme way to view tiny laboratory entities that are no larger than the period at the end of this sentence and are routinely flushed from the body by Mother Nature when created naturally. These blastocysts, as they are called, bear none of the attributes we associate with humanity and, sitting outside the womb, have no chance of developing into babies.

If the President's moral view were correct -- or maybe even if it were merely justified -- then his opposition to this medical research might be understandable, forgivable, appropriate, or morally required. Even if the view were out of the mainstream. We must put the criticism in the correct place.

Good speech

Senfronia Thompson, a Texas Representative from Houston, delivered what seems to be a rather stirring speech against the Texas gay marriage amendment. It's quoted in its entirity here, and it's a good read. UPDATE: Changed link to a registration-free one. Thanks, Shari.