Incoherent Arguments on Life

In Colorado, citizens get to vote for an inordinate amount of referendums and ballot initiatives. Essentially Coloradans get a lot of say in state law, which is empowering and overwhelming all at the same time. It is important to be informed, but it requires a lot of reading and careful research on the issues. The Denver Post has been helpful in these pursuits. On it's Op-Ed page, they always take issues and stances on Editorials. I've found that I get more facts and information on political issues in these editorials than I do on the report pieces that really just tell me what McCain or Obama said about one another. The DP also has for-against column pieces for many of the ballot initiatives. One such example appeared in yesterday's Post, discussing the Amendment 48 proposal that supports the acknowledgement of human life beginning at fertilization.

The "against" column was written by L. Indra Lusero and Lynn M. Paltrow of various reproductive rights organizations. Their column was a sad excuse for an argument, as the entire premise of the column was that the amendment would be bad because they could cite two examples of government overreach. The entire column thus commits the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy: either women have choice or they're dragged against their will by mean people to have a baby in a manner they wish not. Other possibilities do exist: the amendment could prevent more abortions by placing certain restrictions where it may be easier to have an abortion, and it might not intervene through court orders at all (such as the examples cited in the article). The women in the artcle were having their babies anyway. No doubt, these examples are egregious government overreaches, but that is not the logical conclusion to this amendment. Yet, that makes the column guilty of overly emotive arguments that lack tight logic.

It is measures such as Amendment 48 that slowly chip away against the bad constitutional law of Roe. I will be voting in favor of Amendment 48.

Much Ado About Energy

A surprising editorial from the Denver Post embraces a comprehensive energy policy that includes offshore drilling (ANWR still pending?).

Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now!" offers completely differing thoughts than the DP, especially about nuclear energy. The arguments posited in this column consist only of quotes from someone else with little evidential claim.

And just for kicks, Al Gore yesterday on Meet the Press.

The need for more energy is certainly a tall-task. Population growth is reason enough to need more energy, but increasing consumption may be increasing the drive to more energy- whether oil, clean coal, nuclear energy, or renewable energy. Yet, one will rarely hear a call from Washington to actually decrease one's personal consumption. The Lausanne Occasional Papers, an evangelical Christian document, produced A Commitment to Simple Life-Style that may bear on this issue. A pertinent quote from it: "We therefore denounce environmental destruction, wastefulness and hoarding. We deplore the misery of the poor who suffer as a result of these evils. We also disagree with the drabness of the ascetic. For all these deny the Creator's goodness and reflect the tragedy of the fall. We recognise our own involvement in them and we repent."

Could we go without tv, internet, air conditioning, or most electronics? How much of what we have is a necessity versus a luxury?