On Stem Cells and the Presidency
I voted for Ralph Nader. Twice. And I live in South Florida. Because of that combo grande, I am perfectly positioned to be blamed for the current president being in office.
I am, however, not responsible. After all, it was the Supreme Court of the United States that decided Dubya would be president.
I haven’t watched any of the debates, as I’m not sure they’re relevant for anything other than bad dinner party conversation. I am a registered Independent (yes, I was a registered Socialist when I was 22, but so were a lot of grad students in NYC), so it technically doesn’t matter to me. But there are a couple of issues that are very, very important to me, and I just might cast my vote in ’08 based on them alone.
- My candidate must be pro-choice. (At the vegan/raw potluck I wrote about last week, I saw one of those bumperstickers that says: "Pro-life? Are you a vegan?" ON A LEXUS SUV FILLED WITH LEATHER. Hello?)
- My candidate must be pro-embryonic stem cell research (there is currently a ban on such research in the US). Stem cells have the potential to become any cell in the human body, they are not sentient, and as Sam Harris says in The End of Faith regarding the argument of religious people that stem cells are all potential human beings, "By the measure of a cell’s potential, whenever the president scratches his nose he is now engaged in a diabolical culling of souls . . . . Those opposed to therapeutic stem-cell research on religious grounds constitute the biological and ethical equivalent of a flat-earth society" (167).
I’m not completely convinced that people who are against stem cell research don’t have a different agenda: protection of the billions of dollars that are able to circulate throughout the economy as a result of experiments on nonhuman animals. Here are just a handful of sources:
- Breeding nonhuman animals for sale to laboratories
- Transporting those animals around the country and the world
- Entire corporations that exist to experiment on animals, often duplicating experiments that have been around for years
- Grant funds to researchers and funding for technicians and others involved in the set-up and clean-up of a site that functions to experiment on, kill and dispose of animals
- Pharmaceutical companies
Because the economic model of the United States is not capitalism, but corporate socialism, the power the myriad corporate interests involved in nonhuman animal experimentation cannot be underestimated. And when combined with ignorance-based religion, the best hope we have of finding a cure for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s (among many, many other diseases, afflictions, and injuries), will never see the light of day.
The election is a long way off, and no viable candidate (not even the vegan, whom I don’t think is viable anyway) is going to be satisfactory to me regarding farming in America or religion. But I can start to draw lines in the sand. I can also decide, as I have in the past, that my vote is going to the person whom I believe would best represent the values I think this country should have.
Has Mr. Nader thrown his hat in the ring, yet?
I keep missing presidential elections because I forget to register in that particular state in time. So I think I've voted twice, ever. It is hard to feel like there is a point, especially when none of them seem worth getting excited over.
Kucinich's candidacy seems more viable this year than I expected. He participated in a phone call interview at AR07 (all the candidates from all parties were invited, but he was the only one who accepted) and he sounded good. I haven't looked closely at the things he supports, in general though.
I read somewhere that "religion is going to be important for this election." And I was sort of dumbfounded. When has religion NOT been important in these elections. Hello! Gay marriage and women's rights over their own bodies were what people voted on last time, mostly based on either homophobia or religious mores (which might be the same thing). To hell with the economy, let's "save" the family! (because, you know, my dad would have kicked off his shoes and gone running to find a gay lover if gay marriage was suddenly legal. pfft.)
Anyway, this is sort of rambling, I guess. With the republicrats and the democrans looking more and more alike, I don't see any candidate standing strong for women's reproductive rights, let alone stem cell research. So what do we do in the end, if there are no candidates on the ballot worth voting for?
I guess I'll write in "Mary Martin." You won't mind, will you? It is you or Utah Phillips!
I'll take this moment to also recommend that everyone sign up for absentee ballots. Most places don't require that you be physically unable to go to the polling stations, it is more preference. And considering the issues with the voting machines and all the rest, it seems safest. And I find that I prefer being able to sit with my ballot at my computer researching the issues I'm given the chance to vote on that I was clueless enough to not have known would be on the ballot ahead of time. (i know you can find all these things online, but eh, i'm lazy!)
i think Kucinich is veg and john robbins supported him last time round. we really need to do away with this silly voting stuff because it presumes too much in the voters … mm for benevolent dictator!!
Prad,
Yes, Kucinich is a vegan. But he quotes the Bible a lot (he's Roman Catholic) and I always worry about religion in gov't. Also, and not that he could do anything else realistically, he is sort of a happy meater in that he wants to go back to the old way of farming. He might not believe that as an individual, but as a candidate he says that sort of thing. Meanwhile, factory farming is just fine with all the other candidates, so this is hardly a realistic point to nail him on. However, if Ralph Nader were a vegan, he's probably be completely transparent and advocate for measures to abolish the use of animals. I like his intellectual honesty (in the face of nationwide laughter).
Back on Planet Earth, does this even matter considering neither man could get elected in '08? Well, we've gotta start somewhere with dismantling the one party system that masquerades as two parties. (And I'd love to get rid of the electoral college while we're at it.) A third party has to develop some kind of momentum. And it would seem that this is the perfect time for a Green Party surge, no? Maybe it's me. But all of this talk of environmentalism naturally lends itself to a strong(er) third party involvement in '08. Maybe Gore will run with Nader (yeah, right). Not that that would necessarily be a great idea, but it certainly would get people talking.
I'm stymied. But I welcome ideas.
🙂