The Church of Death

According to the theocons, a human being exists from the "moment" two people’s DNA merge in conception. The womb is therefore a natural killing field for countless human beings who never make it past conception to implantation, let alone further along the birth process. This is why the Christianists want to ban the morning-after pill, because they see it as a form of abortion, because it makes it much harder for an embryo to implant in the uterine wall. The Catholic church, however, supports the "rhythm method" for birth control, where a couple only has sex outside a woman’s fertile period, when the uterine wall is less receptive to new embryos. What’s the difference? A new paper argues: none at all. Money quote:

"Even a policy of practising condom usage and having an abortion in case of failure would cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method," writes Luc Bovens, of the London School of Economics, in the Journal of Medical Ethics… As many as 50% of conceptions may not survive long enough even to disrupt menstruation, Bovens says. It is reasonable to assume then, he adds, that embryos created from sperm that has been sitting for days within the female’s reproductive tract before ovulation may be disadvantaged.
The situation is similar, he suggests, for eggs that have been waiting around for sperm to arrive. These are the only two likely scenarios where fertilisation might occur using the rhythm method, he points out.
These embryos may then face a less-than-ideal uterine lining, he points out, since the uterus is not as receptive outside of the most fertile period.
Bovens calculates that, if the rhythm method is 90% effective, and if conceptions outside the fertile period are about twice as likely to fail as to survive, then "millions of rhythm method cycles per year globally depend for their success on massive embryonic death".

Is the Pope facilitating a holocaust? By his own logic, perhaps. Mr Ponnuru, call your office.

Converts or Heretics?

I share a lot of views with John Stossel, the iconoclastic ABC reporter. I also share his view of the resilient intolerance of parts of the left. Money quote:

Q: For the record, when someone asks you what your politics are, what your point of view is, what do you say to them?

STOSSEL: I’d say I’m a libertarian. And I prefer the word ‘liberal’ except that the liberals stole the word and have perverted it to mean ‘big government running your life.’ So I’m stuck with ‘classical liberal’ and no one knows what that means, so I call myself a libertarian.

Q: That puts you at odds with both liberals and conservatives. Which side hates you or dislikes you more ‚Äì liberals or conservatives? You are in favor of legalizing drugs, you’re not against abortion ‚Äì things like that would annoy conservatives. But you’re also in favor of free-market solutions to just about everything, from schools to buses.

STOSSEL: I think homosexuality is all right. And yet the conservatives will pay me a $40,000 speaking fee — which goes to charity, by the way ‚Äì and invite me to their events and have me on their shows. But the liberals will have nothing to do with me.

You can tell a lot about a movement by whether it is mainly interested in finding converts or heretics. Neither side is blameless in this; but the lefties would be more convincing in their appeals for tolerance if they engaged in more of it themselves.

Pap from Pappas

Here are a couple of paragraphs to depress you about the honorable conduct of senior military figures:

Col. Thomas M. Pappas, the top military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib, testified in the earlier trial of Sergeant Smith that General Miller had recommended the use of dogs during interrogations. But on Wednesday in the current trial, he testified that General Miller did not make any such specific recommendations.

General Miller did not appear in the earlier trial, invoking his right not to give testimony that might incriminate him. But he changed his position after the Senate Armed Services Committee delayed his retirement until he was more forthcoming.

So one colonel flatly contradicts himself; and another won’t testify unless he’s thrown a bone by the Pentagon. And we think these military tribunals have a chance in hell of showing why torture and abuse have occurred in almost every interrogation center in the war on terror? These people may not know how to run a military prison but they sure have figured out how to run a cover-up. Daily coverage of the Cardona "trial" can be found here.