This UPI story shows us one of the greatest dangers facing us now that the Democrats are in control.
This article is scary for other reasons too. For instance, it is very important to realize that sloppy reporting comes from sloppy thinking...which, of course, begets yet more sloppy thinking. And when the truth is hidden, nothing but scary things can result.
If you'll permit me, I'd like to do a quick run-through of this story for content and technique, recalling the journalism basics I learned way, way back in the days of my writing for the Trinidad State Trojan newspaper.
Kristyn Ecochard writes in this article, The support of stem cell research is promising but not a complete turn-around, said Jonathan Moreno, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and professor at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. "On the surface, it doesn't appear there's a veto-proof majority in the House or the Senate," he told UPI. "But people may be more open now to hearing what the scientific evidence says."
[The reporter lets this quote about "scientific evidence" stand on its own despite the fact that the real scientific evidence shows that embryonic stem cell use is a literal "dead end" -- not to mention also that the real scientific evidence clearly shows the embryos exploited in this research are living human beings. The reporter's failure to get at the truth thus creates a serious misunderstanding. And though that's standard practice nowadays, it remains illegitimate reporting.]
Again from the article, The Catholic Church's stance is that life begins at the moment of conception. However, survey results from a 2005 Johns Hopkins University study show that among U.S. Catholics, 69 percent dissent from the view of the church and approve embryonic stem cell research. Perhaps more surprisingly, the poll showed 49.5 percent of fundamental evangelical Christians approve of stem cell research, Holland said.
[Two points here. The first is that the Catholic Church "stance" isn't made on a whim. In this case, the Catholic Church's "stance" just happens to be what every scientist, every doctor, every kid with a biology textbook knows is an actuality. The way the reporter phrases this suggests otherwise. Again, bad and biased journalism.
The second point is the reporter’s implication that polls of the self-identified adherents of a religion should determine the official teaching of that religion. Weird reasoning? Sure, but to a reporter ignorant of the very concept of divine revelation (the communication from God to man of His demands), he/she is likely to believe that religion must (or should) be determined by majority vote. And yet, as is clear from the reporting trends in recent decades, there is tremendous inconsistency here. Thus, even when the overwhelming majority of...say Catholics or evangelicals agree on a position that happens to be politically incorrect, journalists find other reasons to disparage their convictions.]
And finally, Ms. Ecohard writes, In the scientific community there is still some debate as to when a child's life has begun, although most believe an embryo is a developing human life. It's still debatable, however, whether the fetus is developed enough at five days or 14 days of life.
[Dissecting a reporter's work can be maddening and so this is the last one I'll comment on, but notice the patent silliness of the opening clause here. There may be "debate" in the newsroom or among Planned Parenthood employees, but among scientists there is no more debate about when life begins than there is about the existence of gravity. Certainly, there are plenty of scientists who dismiss the value of human life at its earliest stages, but only among the most decidedly unscientific does someone dare to deny life begins at conception.
The second clause may be even more absurd. "Most believe an embryo is a developing human life." What else could they believe? And third, note the reporter’s clumsy sentence structure in her last sentence. "Developed enough" for what, for crying out loud? For them to qualify for the definition of human life? For it to be morally acceptable to kill them? Sigh.]
I could go on a bit; like mentioning the reporters failure to equally cite contrary opinions or her unnecessary use of quotation marks when she writes of "dead" embryos (trying to make dead somehow less...well, dead), and so on, but you get the idea. But it is important to read carefully such news reports and to teach others to do the same lest we fall into the traps of bias, selective omission, illogical argument, labeling, ad hominem attacks, etc. that modern reporters use.
But, putting all the sloppy reporting in this article aside, it does most certainly reveal one very important truth -- Nancy Pelosi and her pals are going to be pressing and pressing very hard to get more license and more dough for the Frankensteinian horrors of ESCR. Lord help us.
