The natural sciences can inform rather than dictate our public policy

In an article titled "Can Neuroscience Challenge Roe v. Wade?" William Egginton, professor in the Humanities at John Hopkins University, cautions us to be careful in how we use the natural sciences to shape public policy. In this case, abortion rights. Egginton writes about attorney Rick Hearn's suits against Idaho's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act "and others like it that cite neuroscientific findings of pain sentience on the part of fetuses as a basis for prohibiting abortions even prior to viability." The reason for this is because Hearn believes that the government is using results from the natural sciences "as a basis for expanding or contracting the rights of its citizens." The logic goes like this: if it can be proven that fetuses are capable of pain then they are conscious and thus a person deserving of their full rights under the constitution. This clearly has political overtones. ...

On Sarah Palin’s Spoken-Word Performance at the Iowa Freedom Summit

Recently speaking at the Iowa Freedom Summit, former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin gave a speech that, as one writer for the conservative National Review wrote, was "meandering and often bizarre." Satirist Jon Stewart had a field day with this, of course, comparing Palin's speech to those Lincoln commercials where Matthew McConaughey drives around making sounds. This criticism, though, is unfair. I mean, sure, if you're a philistine everything she said was stupid, babbling nonsense (that's because you're a philistine), but just look at how Palin's speech has been excerpted/butchered by the mainstream media (note the formatting) ...