In 2007, a passionate debate raged across the scientific community which culminated with the International Astronomical Union (IAU) downgraded Pluto from the status of planet to mere planetoid.

The decision rocked the world. According to CNN, the Illinois Senate declared Pluto be restored to “full planetary status.” New Mexico’s House of Representatives designated March 13^th, 2009 as “Pluto Day.” Pluto fans can order “Plutophile” bumper stickers, join a Pluto fan club, or sign an online petition.  The media still devotes extensive coverage to this issue. In 2008, the "The Great Planet Debate: Science as Process" conference convened at Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory (APL).  According to Livescience.com:

The entrance to the debate over Pluto's planet status said it all: With techno music blaring in the background, the two debaters and a moderator walked into the auditorium, cameras flashing and the audience clapping.

Hal Weaver of JHU's Applied Physics Laboratory, called the spectacle "a real scientific conference to lay out all the issues and discuss them."

What’s all the fuss about? Pluto is an ice covered rock about 3 billion miles away. It has yet to be reached by a space probe and will probably never be visited by humans. It has zero impact on the lives of most Americans other than what our children memorize in school.

Why did the IAU change its status? A spokesman for the IAU said, “We now know that what we call the different objects has to necessarily change with time." Planetary science advanced in the 79 years since its discovery. Now, advanced instruments like the Hubble telescope, space probes, radio and x-ray telescopes, and host of other tools have enabled breathtaking discoveries. As our body of knowledge expands, old ideas are challenged and definitions change. In science, no assumptions are sacred.

If science deems it important to expend time and money determining the legal status of a hunk of a frozen rock, why won’t we spend at least the same level of effort asking when human life begins?

In Roe v Wade and several other cases, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of abortion and dismissed the question if a fetus was a legally human, stating:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

In the same ruling the Supreme Court place infant viablity at about 27 weeks.

This was1973, when ultrasound technology was just in its infancy. 3D ultrsound and prenatal genetics wasn’t even science fiction. The mirablce of in-uterous fetal surgery didn’t become successful till the 1980s.

Now, in 2009, over 50% of all American premature infants born at 24 weeks survive. In Sweden that number is 70%. Tony Perkins, with the Family Research Council, interviewed for an ABC story, said. “As we see, with the advancement of medical technology, we have children surviving outside the womb younger and younger.” Medically, we’ve come a long way since the Blackman Court.

 

Just when you might think capitalism's global crisis would breathe new life into the left, it's looking increasingly divided and tired. German Chancellor Angela Merkel's re-election a week ago is highlighting a conservative surge in her country and Europe's other powerhouse economies — Britain, France and Italy — where the center-right is either firmly in power or about to get there.

Much of the answer lies in the nature of modern European politics, where even the most ardent conservatives can still embrace social welfare policies that would seem leftist to Americans. And in recent years, European center-right parties have mastered a certain political alchemy in co-opting some of the left's best ideas.

The result is that what would be hot-button issues in the U.S. — abortion, gun control, gay rights or state-guaranteed health care — have long ceased to rile voters in Europe.

Conservatives "have taken a page right out of Bill Clinton's playbook, and that's triangulation,"... Now European conservatives have done "taken the socialist agenda and claimed it as their own,"...

The right has also profited by pounding hard on immigration and crime — popular in times of economic uncertainty — while sending out reassuring messages about preserving Europe's generous welfare systems.

"Our social system is not under threat at all," added Ghislaine Robinson, a French national who is spokeswoman for the Party of European Socialists, the left-leaning bloc in the European Parliament....

..."I think the right wing has stolen quite a few ideas from the left and is pretending to sell them better than we do," said Robinson, of the Party of European Socialists....

..."People are sick and tired of little battles between parties," she said. "What they care about is how they are going to pay their bills and feed their families. That's what matters to them."

If European conservatives believe they’ll sell socialism better than socialist, why do they call themselves “conservatives?” If you soft-peddle socialism, that doesn’t make you a conservative, it makes you a socialist.

 Does anyone on the Continent ever bring up this simple question: Maybe the left's social welfare policies ARE the reason for Europe’s social ills, suck as immigration, crime, and the current economic crisis?

On this side of the pond, when ‘conservatives’ peddle socialism, things always go from bad to worse (see Bush I & Bush II). I call it the "Lord of the Rings Theory." Socialism is a powerful, seductive force. It will, however, always doom to ruin all those who use it, regardless of their good intentions. Progressive's who call themselves ‘conservative think they can cherry-pick elements of socialism and reject only the "bad parts, " or  think socialism will work if only its marketed effectively. Socialism either corrupts market forces, causing economic disaster (the housing crisis) or real conservatives reject progressive "conservatives" outright (Bush I), or both (Bush II).

America rejected McCain in 2008 because we weren't "sick and tired of little battles between parties." We rejected McCain because there was essential no difference between ‘progressive’ conservatives and ‘normal’ progressives except the speed at which they are pushing the nation left.

I hope Europeans are really looking for a choice, for real conservatism, but I don't believe true freedom is in Europe's blood. They are too addicted to their failing safety nets. True freedom takes courage; courage to stand on you own and reject the government drug of wealth redistribution that puts people to sleep and slowly rots their souls. Socialism is a parasite which eventually kills its host. I look at Europe, and I see a dying continent, Europeans are only really choosing how quickly.