Blogosphere Synthesis - July 6

Before logging into work, I decided to tool around the blogosphere.

Michelle wonders about O'Connor's replacement overturning Roe v. Wade here.

Over at Right Thinking People, Trodwell notes that PMPM appears set to

speak "forcefully" to Bush at the G8 to convince him of the scientific evidence that the world is getting warmer and that manmade sources are the cause.

"Obviously, accepting the validity of the science is the first step toward dealing with the issue," he said Tuesday during a visit to Ireland.

"I intend to make the point and I'll make the point very forcefully in terms of the science."

Ah... a man of science, that Paul Martin. He ignores the body of evidence--all equally scientific, if you will--that suggests that even if the world's climate is changing, there is nothing we could do about it.

Which brings us to Roe v. Wade. Robert P. George argues from a scientific basis that a new, genetically distinct life is created at conception. That this aligns with a religious position is well and good, but not necessary to the argument.

However in Roe v. Wade, the majority (7) held that

[The State] has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.

(quotes are indeed in the decision)

No science involved there. They postulated some sort of arbitrary changes in the nature of the developing baby (the "potentiality of human life" in their terms), but didn't specify really what they were.

From this I gather that the liberal view is that science is a wonderful thing when it supports your position--and especially great when it allows for a little bashing of the United States--but it can be safely disregarded when it is inconvenient to your position.