There May Be Other Sources of Meat, Redux

September 15, 2008 § 25 Comments

I and a few others have elicited skeptical responses to the notion that being McCain’s vice president may end up ruining Sarah Palin. In fact, just being his running mate is bringing forth the early signs. Via Stony Creek Digest we get a little preview of things to come:

GIBSON: Embryonic stem cell research, John McCain has been supportive of it.

PALIN: You know, when you’re running for office, your life is an open book and you do owe it to Americans to talk about your personal opinion, which may end up being different than what the policy in an administration would be. My personal opinion is we should not create human life, create an embryo and then destroy it for research, if there are other options out there[*]… And thankfully, again, not only are there other options, but we’re getting closer and closer to finding a tremendous amount more of options, like, as I mentioned, the adult stem cell research.

Echoing her new boss, we learn from Mrs. Palin that it is good that we may not have to eat children, after all, because there may be other sources of meat.

I can only imagine what eight years of being McCain’s vice president may do to this very promising and potentially formidable pro life politician. I again reiterate that the best thing for Sarah Palin, and the best thing for us with respect to Sarah Palin’s future as an American politician, may be a McCain loss.

UPDATE: And the hits keep on coming. Also courtesy of Jeff Culbreath, McCain-Palin have a new radio ad, which goes:

They’re the original mavericks. Leaders. Reformers. Fighting for real change. John McCain will lead his Congressional allies to improve America’s health.

  • Stem cell research to unlock the mystery of cancer, diabetes, heart disease.
  • Stem cell research to help free families from the fear and devastation of illness.
  • Stem cell research to help doctors repair spinal cord damage, knee injuries, serious burns.
  • Stem cell research to help stroke victims.

And, John McCain and his Congressional allies will invest millions more in new NIH medical research to prevent disease. Medical breakthroughs to help you get better, faster. Change is coming.

McCain-Palin and Congressional allies. The leadership and experience to really change Washington and improve your health.

Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee.

Now that’s just about all you can eat.

[*] – In the video, Mrs. Palin emphasizes this phrase.

(Cross-posted)

Tagged:

§ 25 Responses to There May Be Other Sources of Meat, Redux

  • Zippy, is that the most charitable interpretation of her comment? I don’t think so. Claiming that there are alternatives is not the same thing as claiming that otherwise destroying embryos would be justified. Why not take the more charitable interpretation? In the peace of Christ,– Bryan

  • zippy says:

    She may have misspoken, of course. But what she actually said is that she is against embryo-farming <>if there are alternatives<>.

  • Zippy,If p then q, does not entail if ~p then ~q. We want to avoid the fallacy of denying the antecedent.In other words, what she said is also compatible with her being against it if there are no alternatives. And as for myself, I’d wait to hear her say [she’s against it only if there are alternatives] before concluding that’s what she believes.In the peace of Christ,– Bryan

  • zippy says:

    Bryan: watch the video. I updated the post to point out that the emphasis on the “if” clause is hers, not mine.

  • JohnMcG says:

    I agree — it seems like Palin is moving toward the GOP and McCain, rather than vice versa.I don’t think her interests and the interests of the McCain-Obama ticket are in alignment.On the plus side, it will be difficult for the GOP to blame their defeat on social conservatism.

  • zippy says:

    <>I don’t think her interests and the interests of the McCain-Obama ticket are in alignment.<>McCain-Palin ticket, I assume you mean. Yeah, it is starting to look like, taking the long view, this was not a good thing <>for her<>. Though being the VP candidate of a <>losing<> McCain-Palin ticket may be overall the best thing for her.

  • love the girls says:

    What is her position on in vitro fertilization?Her stand on it should inform us as to her stand on the embryonic stem cell research.

  • love the girls says:

    The language is too subtle, for the shift to be Palin’s. Subtlety is good, as long as it’s obvious, but this suspected change in Palin is not obvious but reading the tea leaves. Perhaps the shift is not in Palin’s position, but in McCain’s.http://catholicism.about.com/od/thechurchintheworld/p/Republican_ESCR.htm

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    Bryan, I think that’s pushing it and refusing to recognize what everyone knows about conversational implicature. Consider the following parallels:“I think it’s wrong to decapitate five-year-olds if there are other alternatives.”“I think it’s wrong to rape women if there are other alternatives.”“I think it’s wrong for the English to eat the children of Ireland if there are other alternatives.”If you push on the distinction between “if” and “only if” you can try to argue that none of these is objectionable, because you could say that for each of them, the person was reserving the right to say, “And it’s also wrong to do this if there aren’t other alternatives.”But no one would think that any of these statements was anything other than outrageous, because that’s just not how we use the word “if” in English conversation.

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    LTG, as a matter of actual sociological fact, that isn’t true. There are thousands of American evangelicals who think in vitro fertilization is morally permissible but embryo-destroying research isn’t. I disagree with them, because I think IVF is wrong, as well. But you can’t in point of fact use the one position as much of a clue to the other as a purely empirical matter.

  • JohnMcG says:

    Of course, the apologists will say that the add doesn’t advocate <>embryonic<> stem cell research.Nevertheless, I think it’s quite short of the moral leadership we’d like to see.

  • love the girls says:

    Miss Lydia writes : “LTG, as a matter of actual sociological fact, that isn’t true. . .”Of course. Men often hold contradictions because they fail to see the middle term, but that failure can be insightful to others.If she holds in vitro to be a good, then it would show that she either isn’t against escr in principle, or incapable of understanding it in principle.If so, she can be moved to the squishy middle.

  • Anonymous says:

    I’m supporting Palin/McCain, but the radio ad is damning. Sadly, it looks like McCain is definitely influencing Palin rather than the other way around.

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    Well, LTG, as a strict matter of logic, I think I disagree with you. It doesn’t follow from, “It is moral to make human beings in a petri dish” that “It is moral deliberately to destroy human beings made in a petri dish.” While making them in a petri dish does tend to objectify them and does bring them into existence in a way that is unfitting to their human dignity, it does not _logically_ follow that it is moral to murder them. Compare, “It is moral deliberately to conceive a child with a woman you hate in order to perpetuate your aristocratic line” and “It is moral to murder the child you have created in that fashion.” The former mode of conception is wrong and is a case of treating the child as an object and a means to an end, but you are not thus logically committed to the morality of murdering the child.

  • “Of course, the apologists will say that the add doesn’t advocate embryonic stem cell research.”If that were true, the ad would be meaningless. The Bush administration already funds adult stem cell research. The NIH provided over $200MM in 2006, for example. The ad only makes sense in the context of ESCR. That’s “real change”.

  • JohnMcG says:

    Right, but I think the McCain campaing knows that a lot of people like Palin, and want to support her, and will latch onto it.

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    Jeff Culbreath makes an excellent point, and one I hadn’t thought of in just those terms. The “maverick” term is also code.

  • zippy says:

    A commenter in the W4 thread <>actually did<> make the point that the ad doesn’t say ’embryonic’. No confirmation bias there, eh?

  • JohnMcG says:

    The McCain campaign will be an interesting test of cognitive dissonance.They managed to get social conservatives to emotionally commit to the ticket by nominating Palin and the subsequent nasty attacks on her.Now, they are pivoting away from that position and hoping we won’t notice.The results will be interesting.

  • e. says:

    Zippy <>et al<>,FWIW, Dr. Liccione has provided rebuttal to your assertion that a Vote for McCain is a Vote for a “Human Cannibal”:LINK:< HREF="http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-vote-for-mccain-isnt-vote-for.html" REL="nofollow">Why a vote for McCain isn’t a vote for cannibalism<>

  • zippy says:

    A vote for McCain isn’t of necessity a vote for cannibalism. It <>is<> of necessity a vote for a cannibal, since that is what McCain is.

  • Lydia,If that’s how you read what I write, then you will not infrequently misunderstand me. The “if” need not imply anything about the speaker’s position per se; it can also indicate an awareness of the position(s) of the listeners, so as to be rhetorically tactful. (That’s precisely why your three examples work, because *nobody* supports such practices.) Moreover, political language is not ordinary breakfast table language. Political language is very carefully worded so as to avoid losing or offending people on both sides of the party. That’s why I myself would wait for an explicit statement before assuming from what she said that she thinks ESCR is permissible even if there are no medical alternatives. In the peace of Christ,– Bryan

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    Bryan: 1) It wouldn’t have “offended” anybody nor been tactless for Palin to use “and” instead of “if” as I suggested. It simply would have made the point that presumably she wanted to make about all these great alternatives without inviting the very questions we are raising here. There is, of course, a major difference between “avoiding offense” and being _deliberately_ ambiguous so as to try to court approval from people with evil opinions by making them think that you, yourself, share their evil opinions. Which brings me to 2) The ad. Zippy has just posted over at What’s Wrong with the World an _explicit statement_ from a spokesman from the McCain campaign explaining the ad as referring inter alia to _embryonic stem-cell research_ in order to reassure pro-ESCR people that McCain hasn’t backed off on his stand in favor of it. That’s just huge. And Palin’s name is used in the ad, too, as leading us into this “change.” So whatever she means or meant, she is being drawn willy-nilly into McCain’s express advocacy of _embryonic_ stem-cell research.

  • e. says:

    Pricipium Unitatis:“Zippy, is that the most charitable interpretation of her comment?”For what’s it worth, I too was willing to accomodate a more charitable interpretation of the comment; I am hoping that, nevertheless, Palin won’t cave under pressure to compromise her own Pro-Life principles all for political expediency.

  • love the girls says:

    Miss Lydia writes : “Well, LTG, as a strict matter of logic, I think I disagree with you. It doesn’t follow from, . . .”In vitro may intend life, but it’s prior known that the method used procreates far more babies than will ever make it past the rim of the petri dish. It’s prior known that those babies who do not make it past the petri dish rim will be eventually killed.Further, while murder does occur as prior known with in vitro, it is not murder which I was considering when I said that they were similar in principle. I was thinking of the unnatural means of procreation which both in vitro and escr use which is a breaking of the first commandment.They usually aren’t recognized for what they are, but birth control, human cloning, human-beast gene manipulation, escr, and in vitro all fall under the practice of occultism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading There May Be Other Sources of Meat, Redux at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: