In a post on the brouhaha concerning James Watson's theory on differences of intelligence between races, Oliver writes in a response to an article by Steven Rose, "I find unexceptionable Rose's insistence that "heritability of group differences ought to be as irrelevant to today's biology as phlogiston theory is to chemistry or 'intelligent design' to evolution"." But isn't the heritability of group differences precisely what evolution theory is all about? And therefore, should it not be fairly high up on the 'things to do list' of all biologists?
As I indicated in an earlier post touching on this subject, I am unable to comment on Watson's claim because I have no idea what, in this context, 'intelligence' is. All I do know is that some people, generally reckoned to be highly intelligent, do come out with some total 'cods' from time to time. I suppose Watson stands as an example, along with, er, Oliver Kamm!
In an earlier post, Oliver marched fearlessly into the minefield of abortion law. He informs us that "The Abortion Act of 1967 was an important advance in what the late Lord Jenkins, then Home Secretary, rightly preferred to call the civilised society rather than the permissive society [my emphasis]." I'm sure the late Lord Jenkins did prefer the former to the latter description of his life's project but that doesn't make it either true or accurate. Oliver goes on to say, "Safe and legal abortion is a humanitarian and a libertarian cause." Well, possibly - no, undoubtedly - true if you are a comfortably situated and high-minded liberal progressive. However, there might be a few 20- to 23-week old foetuses who would give you an argument if they still had a voice which of course they don't, and never will have, because they are dead. However, it is Oliver's elision of the truth that worries me, and because he is normally scrupulous in such matters, I can only put it down to confusion on his part that he forgets to point out that "Safe and legal abortion" already existed before the 1967 Act. By the early '60s the NHS was carrying out nearly 3,000 abortions a year and private clinics even more. This was as a result of a very brave Doctor called Aleck Bourne who, in 1938, carried out an abortion on a 14-year old who had been gang-raped by soldiers. Having completed the procedure safely, he then went straight to the police and confessed. In a landmark trial he was completely exonerated and that is how matters stood until 1967 when the grounds for abortion were changed and relaxed such that today it is an alternative birth control method and the total number of abortions is over 200,000 per year.
Of course, all of this is only of academic interest to statisticians, and the liberal progressives who believe (well, they must believe it, surely!) that foetuses are not human. Or to be precise, even if it means some confusion, they are not human up to 24 weeks. Following their logic, something must happen to a foetus at the last minute of the last hour of the 24th week such that, hey presto, that living, pulsating, growing bunch of cells is suddenly a human being. What I want to know is, what is it? No one ever tells me! And why do we waste the time of busy surgeons and nurses, and use up precious operating theatre time, trying to save foetuses who are less than 24 weeks? I mean, if they're not human, why bother?
Normally I can rely on Oliver Kamm for clear thinking but I fear a thick fog has descended over Brighton and Hove!
Hat tip to Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday for the story of Dr. Aleck Bourne.
Of all the 60s reforms that were claimed to be liberal, the only one that was both indubitably liberal and, in my view, an undoubted good thing, was the decriminalising of homosexual acts.
Posted by: dearieme | Sunday, 28 October 2007 at 18:45
I would agree with that even if, through gritted teeth, I am forced to watch the metropolitan homosexual lobby drive the whole thing into areas never dreamt of by the reformers.
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 28 October 2007 at 19:31
When did you turn into Julian Clary, David?
I'm sure you'd hate to watch (through your gritted teeth?) as the homosexuals drive the whole thing into areas never dreamt of by reformers.
If you'd like to test the grittedness of your teeth, I'm told there are plenty of sites where you can see that sort of thing for free...
Posted by: Flying Rodent | Monday, 29 October 2007 at 00:09
Well done, 'Ratty', you started my day with a chuckle. In retrospect, not perhaps the happiest choice of words. Still, it takes a dirty-minded, oats-chewing Jock like you to spot it!
Made me laugh, though.
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 29 October 2007 at 11:33