Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

DOCTORS DEBATE WHEN TO DECLARE ORGAN DONORS DEAD

Here's the AP story.  It cites other cases on an issue I have posted on before here and here.  The Family Research Council comments on this latest story involving three infants as follows:

We've all debated the question of when life begins, but how about death? That's the latest issue plaguing the medical community as the need for organ donors continues to grow. The latest edition of the New England Journal of Medicine reports on three controversial cases in which infants died, and physicians harvested the hearts before the babies met the criteria of "complete, irreversible cessation of brain function or of heart and lung function." The Denver doctors who performed the procedure, which some claim is "tantamount to murder," are at the center of a growing moral debate. George Annas, a Boston University bioethicist told the Washington Post, "This practice cannot be ethically justified . . . . I understand that they would like us to change the definition of death, but they can't do that by themselves."

40% of PATIENTS IN A "VEGETATIVE STATE" ARE MISDIAGNOSED

Is this a cause for alarm or what?!  Read more here.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY AND THE NAZIS. UNIVERSITIES ACQUIRE MORAL STAINS FAR TOO READILY

Don't look to universities for wisdom and moral guidance.  Technical skills, yes.  Wisdom and moral guidance?  No. Here's a short rundown on Harvard's coziness with the Nazi regime and its anti-Semitic stance back in the 1930s.  (HT: Jonah Goldberg who also provides an excerpt)

WHAT THE WORLD REALLY ADMIRES

Peggy Noonan, in writing about media coverage of Tim Russert, makes a great point:

In a way, the world is a great liar. It shows you it worships and admires money, but at the end of the day it doesn't. It says it adores fame and celebrity, but it doesn't, not really. The world admires, and wants to hold on to, and not lose, goodness. It admires virtue. At the end it gives its greatest tributes to generosity, honesty, courage, mercy, talents well used, talents that, brought into the world, make it better. That's what it really admires. That's what we talk about in eulogies, because that's what's important. We don't say, "The thing about Joe was he was rich." We say, if we can, "The thing about Joe was he took care of people."

Another excerpt follows:

THE MOVIE "PRINCE CASPIAN" OPENS TODAY - C.S. LEWIS'S "JUST WAR" TALE

- Update 5/30/08 - This review by by Joe Carter over at The Evangelical Outpost has won me over.  I hadn't planned on going to see the movie, but now I plan to see it (at some time or other).

- Update 5/17/08 - Frederica Mathewes-Green thinks the movie improves on the book!  She lists other books that have fared better as movies as well.  You might want to see if you agree with her! - Thomas Hibbs laments alterations the film makes from the book.

- Michael Ward, author of Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C.S. Lewis, offers the following commentary:

"Caspian" is a fantasy, of course - but also a war story. Indeed, it's the tale of a just war: Prince Caspian's fight to return Narnia to its natural, Aslan-given order by driving the tyrant Miraz from power and bringing back and restoring the rights of talking animals, fauns, dwarves and other magical beings.

The tale is full of military events, councils, knights. Aslan gives a great war cry to summon and inspire his troops ("The Lion Roars"). Miraz is defeated in single combat, after which "full battle" is joined.

In fact, "Caspian" is centered on the theme of Mars, god of war.

Lewis wrote the Narnia Chronicles so that they would express the qualities of the seven heavens of the medieval cosmos, which he deemed "spiritual symbols of

Human-Animal Hybrids: "Humanzees" On the Way?

The Family Research Council posts the following:

According to Dr. Calum MacKellar, the U.K. could soon add "humanzees" to its list of attractions.  In an interview with The Scotsman, Dr. MacKellar, research director at the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, says the half-man, half-chimp hybrid is just one of the many species that could become a reality if the government doesn't act quickly. Mackellar warns that human sperm has been and will continue to be inseminated into animals--research that the current Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill allows. The bill, which is creating uproar in Parliament, is schedule for debate in the House of Commons this May. There's no limit to the list of horrors that the legislation would tolerate, including animal-human hybrids, savior siblings, and

POLL SHOCK: AMERICA NOT LIKE HOLLYWOOD

From UPI, a headline that surprised the media:            

Poll: Young Americans revere monogamy

WASHINGTON,  March 30 (UPI) -- Young Americans have a reverence for national institutions, traditions and family values, a U.S. survey indicates. 

A survey of so-called "millennials" -- those between 21 and 29 -- revealed the group overwhelmingly said they support monogamy, marriage, the U.S. Constitution and the military, The Washington Times reported Sunday.

"We were completely surprised. There has been a faulty portrayal of millennials by the media -- television, films, news, blogs, everything. These people are not the self-entitled, coddled slackers they're made out to be. Misnomers and myths about them are all

WHY I AM SKITTISH ABOUT HUMAN ORGAN DONATING

I wrote on this subject before, a post I titled "Why You May Not Want to Check the 'Organ Donor' Box On Your Driver's License."

Now  David Fredosso writes more:

This story, written up in BioEdge, raises an important question. Is there some reason why medical professionals should consider themselves qualified to decide when a living human being's life is no longer valuable? Or should they limit themselves to what they actually studied in school — the practice of medicine?

[O]ver the last few months, the reputation of the American system for gathering organs has been tarnished. In the most dramatic story, an Oklahoma man recovered four hours after doctors had pronounced him "brain-dead" and were preparing to harvest his organs. Zach Dunlap, 21, sustained severe head injuries after a car accident last November. Since

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV ADMITS HE IS A CHRISTIAN; VISITS THE TOMB OF ST. FRANCIS IN ITALY

Update 3/26/08 - Gorbachev dispels "closet Christian" rumors; says he is an atheist

**
Peter Robinson reports, citing today's London Telegraph news article:

Whenever Ronald Reagan would mention his suspicion that Mikhail Gorbachev was a secret believer, everyone on the White House staff would scoff, thinking the president naive. When I had the opportunity to speak to Gorbachev a couple of years ago, however, I found myself concluding that Reagan had been onto something after all. Why, I asked, had Gorbachev refrained from putting down the revolution of 1989, just as Khrushchev had put down the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Brezhnev had put down the Prague Spring of 1968? "Because of something I shared with Ronald Reagan," Gorbachev replied. "Christian morality."

Now the last leader of the Soviet Union has spent half an hour on his knees at the tomb of St. Francis.  From the London Telegraph:

Mikhail Gorbachev...has acknowledged his Christian faith for the first time, paying a surprise visit to pray at the tomb of St Francis of Assisi.

Accompanied by his daughter Irina, Mr Gorbachev spent half an hour on his knees in silent prayer at the tomb.His arrival in Assisi was

ELIOT SPITZER EMBARASSES HIS FAMILY, NEW YORK, AND THE NATION

Gov. Spitzer of New York has used hookers for six years: sources

"Whoever walks in integrity walks securely,
     but he who makes his ways crooked will be found out." 
                    - Proverbs 10:9

"When pride comes, then comes disgrace,
     but with the humble is wisdom."
                   - Proverbs 11:2

"Drink water from your own cistern,
   flowing water from your own well."
                 - Proverbs 5:15

The man refused to protect innocent babies. (Here and here). He was a dedicated foe of conservative causes.  He behaved in a thuggish, brutal manner. The Wall Street Journal called him a man without restraints.

Roger Kimball summarizes:

Really, he was a power-hungry, regulation-crazed functionary whose chief sin was to harness the power of the state to destroy his enemies and aggrandize himself. Had he been a little more hypocritical he might have been less dangerous.

Update: Planned Parenthood lauded Spitzer for rejecting abstinence-based sex education in New York and urged PP supporters to send him a "thank you" letter. (Sept. 2007).

Update: 3/12/08 - Drudge links to a New York Times article that identifies "Kristen" as AshleyAlexander Dupre.  Drudge also links to Dupre's "MySpace"page and photos.   

DYSTOPIAN NOVEL, "NEVER LET ME GO" BY KAZUO ISHIGURO

Lisa Schiffren over at the Corner writes:

"Never Let Me Go" is written in Ishiguro's usual understated, wonderfully controlled, utterly sympathetic and seductive prose style. The story is told through the voice of Kathy, a young English woman now working as a "carer." It looks, at the start, like fairly standard reminiscense of her youth and a couple of close relationships she had at an exclusive English boarding school in the countryside. The school, Hailsham, seems a little odd. The students do too much art, not enough math or science or history. The teachers, known as guardians, constantly tell them that they are very special — and deliberately fail to tell them how or why they are. The author clearly intends readers to understand, subconsciously at first, then by dint of signs of cultural normality that he omits, finally by an increasingly menacing undertone, that this is not a normal place at all, and that the children being educated there are somehow outside of real  society — and not just because they are orphans.

The book is, ultimately, a dystopian fantasty set in the last decades of the 20th Century — a time we know, not the alien, scientifically advanced future. Kathy and her friends are clones. They have been bred, by the government, for their body parts, which they will ultimately "donate." In fact, they will make donations until they

REPRODUCTIVE EXPLOITATION: WOMBS FOR RENT -- AMERICAN WOMEN USE INDIAN WOMEN AS SURROGATE MOTHERS

Chuck Colson offers wise and sensitive comments on a practice highlighted by Judith Warner in her New York Times article, "Outsourced Wombs."

Does Education Improve Human Decency? No Indeed. (So Notes Dennis Prager)

Dennis Prager does it again.  He spells out truths, far from hidden, that nevertheless tend to elude people.  In this article he tackles the false notion that education leads to improved moral behavior.  Not so.  In fact, Prager says the record shows  that

The higher educated in Western society have been more likely to have awful moral values and more likely to support massive cruelty than the less well educated,

Read on for the evidence that conclusively supports his case.

Eugenics: Making a Strong Comeback?

See Gene Veith on The Eugenics Agenda. Veith produces excerpts from Michael Gerson's article, The Eugenics Temptation.

Ayn Rand's Novel "Atlas Shrugged" Published 50 Years Ago

** Updated 9/23/07 - Gene Veith adds comments.

There is an atheism that attacks Christianity on the grounds that it is not true. The new atheism, described below, attacks Christianity on the grounds that it is not good. But Rand's atheism, with that of her mentor Nietzsche, is far more devastating, attacking Christianity on the grounds of its strengths. The ethic of "love," they claim, inhibits the natural law of survival of the fittest, making successful people feel guilty, and draining the culture of its strength, with Christian compassion begetting expensive welfare programs, protectionist economic policies, and other misguided attempts to prop up failures, etc., etc. And unlike most atheists, she offers a positive ideology to fill the void she creates.

When I was in high school, a good friend got way into Rand and this kind of thinking. It challenged my then rather minimalistic faith more than anything else. Trying to answer her led me to C. S. Lewis, among other writers, and drove me deeper into Christianity. But it is driving even more away.

 

A reader of Veith's post says:

For a real eye opener go to Booknotes on c-span and see the July of 1989 interview of Nathaniel Branden. He was one of the founders of the self esteem movement in psychology. Branden was part Rand’s inner circle with Greenspan he also was Rand’s consort. It seems Rand’s personal life was nearly as depraved as her philosophy.

Another writes:

Rand did not hate American Christians. Some of her views can be seen here: http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s=09ef5a488c877095b98a1e8f212f2dc2&showtopic=4867&st=0&p=42353&#entry42353

I would also suggest that John Piper has some worthwhile things to say about what Miss Rand achieved and where she fell short:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1979/1486_The_Ethics_of_Ayn_Rand/

**
For those of us who have heard of Ayn Rand (1905-1982), but haven't read her books, this New York Times article (9/15/07) will serve as an introduction to her ideas and her influence. One of Rand’s most famous devotees is Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve. 

The Wikipedia article is comprehensive and helpful.

Rand was an atheist.  She summarized her philosophy this way:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Whitaker Chambers wrote a classic critique (required reading!) of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. He notes that no children appear in this novel saying "the strenuously sterile world of Atlas Shrugged is scarcely a place for children."   Near the end of his review he speaks of

the book's dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is

Vatican Says Food, Water Must Be Provided to Vegetative Patients

Click here.  Amazingly (and disappointingly) Fred Thompson didn't have an opinion on the Terri Schiavo case when asked. 

Why You May Not Want to Check the "Organ Donor Box" On Your Driver's License

David Freddoso posts the following:

Organ donations save lives, of course. But transplant organizations also troll hospitals like "vultures," as one bioethicist tells today's WaPo, front page below the fold.

The story centers around a doctor accused of hastening a patient's death so that his organs would still be useful by the time he died — the first time a surgeon has been thus charged in a transplant case.

After a long fight with a degenerative disease, Ruben Navarro appeared close to death. So the hospital caring for him alerted the

Catholic Bishops Conference Blasts Amnesty International's Embrace of the Culture of Death

From Kathryn Jean Lopez:

The Catholic bishops conference blasts Amnesty International's embrace of the culture of death :

A Statement of the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Bishop William S. Skylstad, Bishop of Spokane

August 23, 2007

After nearly a year of dialogue with leaders of Amnesty International (AI), the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly protests the recent action of AI’s International Council to promote worldwide access to abortion. This basic policy change undermines Amnesty’s longstanding moral credibility and unnecessarily diverts its mission. In promoting abortion, Amnesty divides its own members (many of whom are Catholics and others who

Adult Stem Cells Rebuild a 58-year-old Woman's Heart

I found this story of the way adult stem cells healed Carron Morrow's serious heart condition thrilling and worth posting.   Chuck Colson tells the story  this way:

An event planner named Carron Morrow says she had two choices when it came to treating a serious heart condition: Sign liability papers for an unusual new treatment—or drop dead.

Not surprisingly, she chose to sign the papers—and became another stem-cell miracle. An adult stem-cell miracle, that is.

Carron, a 58-year-old Alabama mother, was in bad shape last year after suffering four heart attacks. The right side of her heart was functioning at less than 50 percent. Carron needed a new heart—but

Proposal To Use IVF to create "Savior Siblings" in the UK

London Telegraph reports here.

Parents will be allowed to create children specifically to help cure older brothers and sisters of common conditions under proposals unveiled today by MPs and peers.

For the first time, couples could use so-called "saviour siblings" to treat other family members suffering

Ramesh Ponnuru Reviews Lee Silver's "Challenging Nature"

Ramesh Ponnuru offers a penetrating review of Princeton molecular biologist Lee Silver's Challenging Nature: The Clash of Science and Spirituality at the New Frontiers of Life.  Silver, a self-described "extremely skeptical agnostic deist," is a biotechnology enthusiast in some ways even more extreme than Peter Singer.  Silver, not unexpectedly, dislikes Roman Catholic and Evangelical positions on bioethics and biotechnology.  He accuses them of masking their religious orientation in secular-sounding arguments.  Ponnuru doesn't rate Silver's philosophical powers very highly.  He concludes his review this way:

It was once popular to speak of "the two cultures." In the one were the scientists, who knew little of the humanities; and in the other were the humanists, who knew little of the sciences. Lee Silver belongs to the first camp. He is an accomplished scientist, and his book is not without some interesting trivia...  Silver is at his best when he is teaching biology. The results are far less edifying when he commits philosophy, especially when he seems unaware that he is doing so.

"Professionals" Are Not to Be Trusted: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Recommends Aborting Imperfect Babies

Did I put the title of this post a bit too strongly?  I don't think so.  I could have said instead, with perfect accuracy, "The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends killing imperfect babies.  Somehow "killing" is a stronger word than "aborting," though there is no difference  between the two.   Abortion means killing.  It never means anything else.  Dean Barnett, who has Cystic Fibrosis, feels the poignancy of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' recommendation keenly.   He writes:

A disquieting report comes to us today from The Brave New World front. The Washington Post reports that The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists “is urging pregnant women to take note of its new recommendation that doctors offer to screen them for Down syndrome, no matter how old they are.” The College does little to disguise the reasons for their latest “urging.” As the Post puts it,

“The ultimate decision about screening, though, should remain with the mother, the doctors said. After all, she must decide whether to continue with a pregnancy if there are indications the child will have a birth defect.”

Stories like this, and the queasy feelings they generate, are nothing new for me. I’ve been, if not on the frontlines of similar dust-ups, close enough to smell the gunpowder. Here’s my tale.

AS MOST OF THE READERS OF THIS SITE KNOW, I HAVE the genetic lung disease Cystic Fibrosis. When I was born in

Mind Boggling: All Democratic Presidential Candidates Support Partial-Birth Abortion

Kirsten Powers a Democratic writer, helpfully spells out how sadly wrong the Democratic Party and its presidential contenders are with regard to partial-birth abortion.  (By way of Michelle Malkin).  Powers writes (my emphases):

It's tragic that abortion rights have become synonymous with modern day feminism. But it's mind-boggling that late-term abortions now enjoy the imprimatur of every one of the presidential candidates of one of the two main political parties. Many early feminists -- the Suffragettes -- opposed abortion. They viewed it as an affront to human rights. There is little doubt that they would have recognized elective, late-term abortion for what it is, a gruesome, uncivilized and inhuman procedure.

Feminism was meant to establish women as having equal legal rights to men. Yet, in today's twisted debate, women are not mere equals. Instead, they have been elevated to a special status where they have the "right" to determine whether a five-month or older "live fetus," as the court called it, should be partially delivered outside of their body and killed in the most gruesome manner imaginable, even if carrying that fetus poses no threat to their life.

Some elected Democrats ignored this faux-feminist canard, and supported the ban, including Rep. James P. Moran, of Virginia, who said, "It's not about a woman's right to choose. It's about a baby's right to life." The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a pro-choice Democrat, called the practice "infanticide."

It needs to be said that there is no constitutional right to crush a living human's skull and suction out its brains, no matter where that life may reside -- inside the womb, or partially outside the womb, as is done in the so-called partial birth abortion. It's immoral and contrary to the values of the Democratic Party, which prides itself on standing up for the weak and voiceless.

N.T. Wright Taken to Task (Rightly) by Professor Gilbert Meilaender for Views on America and Iraq

Bishop N.T. Wright, for whom I have enormous respect as an historian and New Testament scholar, illustrates (sadly!) how true it is that a man speaking authoritatively outside his realm of expertise makes for truly discouraging reading.

Well-known Christian philosopher Gilbert Meilaender (Valparaiso University), takes N.T. Wright to task in the February 2007  First Things journal for showing little depth of understanding or nuance in his pronouncements on geopolitical issues.  It is the more sad because Wright is known for extraordinary thoroughness in Biblical studies.

A link will be forthcoming to Meilaender's article when the February 2007 First Things issue goes online.   [Here it is.] For now, let me just say that Wright faults the United States' Iraq policy in the most strenuous of terms, without benefit of the theological and political seriousness befitting his position.

A few quotes from Meilaender (which in no way does justice to the whole article): 

When one considers the volumes that have been written by political theorists and political scientists on the nature of political institutions, one ought

Is the Iraq War Just?

Chuck Colson says that's the wrong question.  He writes:

It’s a question a lot of people continue to argue about. And it was a great question to ask in 2002. Now, in 2007, it’s not the right question. . .

But however the war started, the just war criteria are not in question now. In fact, in all the debate about pulling out our troops, no one is really asking the right question. For better or for worse, the United States made promises and commitments to the Iraqi people. So the question now is this: Is it morally acceptable for U.S. forces to leave Iraq in the midst of the bloodshed? (My emphasis)

Read the whole article.

On the breathtaking consequences of pulling out of Iraq in defeat, read Victor Davis Hanson's brilliant analysis here.   Most have no idea how serious it will be.   Krauthammer looks for a tactical strategy to salvage what we can if Maliki proves as unreliable in the future as he has been in the past.   Clifford D. May takes up the issue of Amnesty International and Guantanamo.  Guantanamo is getting a bum rap.

Letter to My Congressman on Embryonic Stem Cells and Bush's Plan to Send More Troops to Iraq

Today I mailed the following hard copy letter to my Democratic Congressman.  He voted to deny federal funds for embryonic stem cell research (I applaud him for that), but has expressed opposition to President Bush's plan to augment U.S. troops in Iraq.  I think this new initiative should be supported.  Here's my letter:

Best greetings! I called your office yesterday to express appreciation for your stem cell vote. I am enclosing an article by Charles Krauthammer which supports your vote. Though Krauthammer has long supported legal abortion

Incredible Stem Cell Research Breakthrough - Of The Non-Embroyo-Destroying Kind

Kathryn Jean Lopez draws attention to an amazing achievement in stem cell research of the non-embryo-destroying kind:

British scientists have grown the world's first artificial liver from stem cells in a breakthrough that will one day provide entire organs for transplant.

The technique that created the 'mini-liver', currently the size of a one pence piece, will be developed to create a full-size functioning liver.

Described as a 'Eureka moment' by the Newcastle University researchers, the tissue was created from blood taken from babies' umbilical cords just a few minutes after birth.

As Lopez writes:

Someone get this news to Missouri voters. You don't need to be pro-embryonic-stem-cell research to be pro-stem-cell-research, science, and hope.

WAR, HATRED, DEHUMANIZATION, AND ISLAM

Mario Loyola has been reading George Orwell and offers the following post:

I try to read a few things every other day from my massive tome of George Orwell's Essays (in the Everyman Library).   Today I came across a real gem.

In his Tribune column "As I Please" Orwell wrote (August 4, 1944) that death and destruction were not the most evil thing about war:

We shall all be dead in less than a hundred years, and most of us by the sordid horror known as "natural death."   The truly evil thing is to an act in such a way that peaceful life becomes impossible.  War damages the fabric of civilization not by the destruction it causes (the net effect of war may even be to increase the productive capacity of the world as a whole), nor even by the slaughter of human beings, but by stimulating hatred and dishonesty.  By shooting at your enemy you are not in

ADAM SMITH, CLASSICAL ECONOMICS, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF

I found Stanley Kurtz's piece in National Review Online stimulating and helpful.  He writes:

Adam Smith was an extraordinary fellow.  More than the founding theorist of market capitalism, Smith was a profound student of moral psychology.  Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments easily matches Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in richness and depth.  I was reminded of this on learning that The Templeton Foundation and the journal In Character had awarded a prize to the authors of an Op Ed entitled, "Disaster Relief: What Would Adam Smith Do?"

The authors, Jonathan B. Wright and Douglas A. Hicks, use Smith's treatment of an imaginary Chinese earthquake in Theory of Moral Sentiments to reflect on the Asian tsunami.  Their underlying point is that economic and political flourishing rest upon civic virtue–a fact well understood by Smith (in contrast to the stereotype of Smith as a radically “laissez faire” thinker).  For an accessible and rounded treatment of Adam Smith, incorporating his Theory of Moral Sentiments and his concerns with character and virtue, see Jerry Z. Muller’s Adam Smith: In His Time and Ours. But of course, best of all is to dive into the Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Dennis Prager: 5 Reasons Not to Shack Up

Good  article. Prager says:

First, no matter what you think when living together, your relationship with your significant other changes the moment you marry. You have now made a commitment to each other as husband and wife in front of almost everyone significant in your life. You now see each other in a different and more serious light.

Second, words matter. They deeply affect us and others. Living with your "boyfriend" is not the same as living with your "husband." And living with your "girlfriend" or any other title you give her is not the same as making a home with your "wife." Likewise, when you introduce that person as your wife or husband to people, you are making a far more important statement of that person's role in your life than you are with any other title.   (More)

A PARENT WHO ALLOWS A DOWN SYNDROME CHILD TO LIVE TERMED A "GENETIC OUTLAW"

It's a weird world when if you don't kill your baby who has been pre-diagnosed with Down Syndrome you are accused of being a "sinner" or a grossly irresponsible individual.  Elizabeth R. Schultz in a Business Week Online article says,

"A recent book even branded me a "genetic outlaw.'  My transgresion?  I am one of the dwindling number of women who receive a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome and choose not to terminate our pregnancies."

She describes new procedures and advances in prenatal diagnoses, and says

From my perspective, though, our increasingly sophisticated technological capacity to identify genetic defects in our children also presents some very real threats to the kind of world we will be passing on to them.  A few years ago, author Christine Rosen wrote, "Those who oppose discarding unfit embryos or aborting unfit fetuses will soon become—perhaps already are—a dissident culture, tolerated at best, but more likely heavily regulated by a society that increasingly expects only healthy children to be born.

"This is an excellent article of which I am sharing only a portion.  To those  parents who are in the throes of decision, she says

We might tell them that studies show that people living with disabilities judge the quality of their own lives much higher than others expect. We might share with them stories of the incredible grace, joy, and happiness that many parents of children with disabilities experience. . .   

Of her own child she says "I would think hard about whether the world would really be a better place without my son's soft, gentle, deep, almond-shaped eyes."

The article benefits from many readers' responses.    Here's one:

Review: My son has Down syndrome. Of course, I wasn't happy to hear that he would have this condition--no parent would wish for a disabled child. But now, 4 years later, my son is such a source of light and happiness in our family--it is inconceivable to think of life without him. Our lives are richer because of him. My daughters are more empathetic and tolerant of others different from them because of their experiences with their brother. When we try to eliminate those who are different or "less perfect," we diminish our humanity and take away from the world the gentler, kinder spirits who would make us better people. Shame on us.

(HT: John Derbyshire at  The Corner)

MAJOR PROBLEMS SURROUNDING EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has posted a number of major arguments against embryonic stem cell research.   If you go to the website here, you can find a short paragraph expanding on each of the following points.  This is useful.

                                                MAJOR POINTS

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Has Failed to Produce Any Cures or Treatments

Ethical Alternatives to Embryonic Stem Cells Exist

Stem Cells from Ethical Sources Are Now Treating Over 70 Diseases and Afflictions

Ethical Alternatives Should Be Pursued Rather Than Seeking to Save Life By Destroying Life

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Diverts Funding Away From More Promising Research

Embryonic Stem Cells Have Dangerous Side Effects That May Require Other Unethical Practices to Remedy

Adult Stem Cells Have Consistently Outperformed Embryonic Stem Cells for Therapeutic Purposes

Very Few “Surplus” Embryos Are Available for Research

Patients Need Cures Not False Hopes

COLUMBINE KILLERS' MOTIVES REVEALED

Here is an important commentary on the published diaries of the Columbine killers.   It illustrates the truth that "Ideas Have Consequences."   The diaries themselves can be found here.    A hint of what you'll find:

Woohoo, I’ll never have to take a final again! feels good to be free. I just love Hobbes and Nietzche. Well tomorrow I’ll buy 9 more 10 round clips for my carbine. I’m gonna be so fucking loaded in about a month…
[page 98]

(HT: MikeKoz)

MASSIVE IGNORANCE ABOUT ABORTION LAW PREVAILS

On the abortion question, John O'Sullivan states what should be obvious:  "What people think about abortion is strongly influenced by what they know."   What are reasons for the ignorance?

Ramesh Ponnuru provides one in his new book, The Party of Death , about the politics of abortion, stem-cell research, and cloning.  He deals, first, with the nature of people’s ignorance.  Most Americans, let alone most European sophisticates, have no idea that the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, establishing a constitutional right to abortion, means that a woman can obtain an abortion right up to the moment of her baby’s birth.  When this claim is advanced, they point out that Roe specifically insists that states may regulate abortion in the second trimester and prohibit it in the third trimester.

But Roe also states that states can neither ban nor regulate abortion in cases where a doctor certifies that a woman’s life or health would be adversely affected. And in a second Supreme Court judgment, Doe v. Bolton, delivered that same day, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote that the doctor’s medical judgment should be exercised “in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.”  In brief: unfettered choice posing as a clinical decision.

Roe and Doe together allow a woman and her doctor to have a legal abortion for any reason at any time before birth and arguably even during birth. The courts have confirmed this in countless cases but especially in those striking down state and federal laws to prohibit or regulate “partial birth abortion”—i.e., the procedure in which a baby is partly delivered and, while in the birth canal, has his or her skull crushed and his or her brains sucked out.

Most Americans don’t know this is legal. If they did, they would oppose it. We reasonably infer this from the 2003 Gallup poll that 68 percent of Americans thought that abortion should be “generally illegal” in the second trimester, let alone the third. This popular opposition has grown slowly but steadily for at least the last decade.

There's much more in the article.   See also my previous post of May 9th on Ramesh Ponnuru's book.

CORRUPTION IN CONGRESS - EXHIBIT A: REP. HAROLD ROGERS (R - KY)

The editors of National Review Online rightly focus on the disgraceful behavior of Rep. Harold Rogers of Kentucky, chairman of the Homeland Security appropriations committee.   

Private companies have courted his favor with political donations, golf excursions, and exotic vacations, and he in turn has channeled millions of taxpayer dollars in their direction. . .  The power of lawmakers to direct public funds to private recipients with little oversight is a great facilitator of corruption. If anyone wonders why many conservatives recoil in disgust from the current Congress, look no further than Chairman Rogers.

Read the article for details.  It should give you a stomach ache and make your blood boil.

SAME SEX MARRIAGE & RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REVISITED

A week ago I posted a Stanley Kurtz article warning about the inevitable clash between same-sex marriage and religious liberty.   Today, Chuck Colson's "Breakpoint" tackles the same subject in a briefer, more accessible way.  I urge readers to click through to the article.   Citing the Massachusetts law that requires all adoption agencies (including Roman Catholic ones) to place children with same-sex couples or close their doors, Colson warns that

"if sexual orientation comes to be seen as analogous to race, which is already the view among many elites, including some in the judiciary. . . then all the force of law unleashed by racism charges will be brought to bear against the Church. 

This is serious stuff.  These are consequences that Mary Cheney, Vice-President Cheney's charming lesbian daughter, has not considered adequately in her book or interviews.   

RAMESH PONNURU'S NEW BOOK: "THE PARTY OF DEATH"

Update 11/5/07 - Ramesh Ponnuru has an essay on the critical reaction to his book, The Party of Death, in the new Human Life Review.

Update 12/04/06 - Wilfred M. McClay, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, offers a comprehensive, thoughtful review of Ponnuru's book in the Fall, 2006 New Atlantis.   Any evaluation of Ponnuru's book will profit greatly from consulting this extensive review.   (HT: Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner)

 

Update:  Wesley J. Smith offers a significant review in the July 3, 2006 issue of the Weekly Standard.   

**

Ramesh Ponnuru has published a new book, The Party of Death:  The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life   It's  getting lots of reviews.    His colleague, Kate O'Beirne, no slouch herself and author of Women Who Make the World Worse, says of it:

Ramesh's remarkable new book is the occasion for a big celebratory one.  Now everyone can have the benefit of what I have repeatedly relied on when I ask "Ramesh, what are your quick thoughts on [insert whatever topic I am expected to have insightful views about]."   Over the years, his thoughtful, incisive answers have made me look smarter on everything from taxes and trade to amnesty and abortion.   Although I have debated the issue of abortion for decades, I now can't imagine how I did so persuasively without a copy of The Party of  Death.  It's a beautifully written and powerfully argued expose of the culture of death. Ramesh's reporting reveals facts about abortion and life issues that I was unaware of. (The tiff over the deliberately provocative title is telling. It provides an excuse for failing to confront the book's devastating contents). For busy well-informed people, The Party of Death   is the rarest of books - a must-read.

Mark Steyn embeds some commentary in the midst of a larger article saying:

The Party Of Death is a very tightly argued case: by halfway through, Ponnuru had made me realize he was pro-life for much better reasons than I am.   Yet the book isn't about abortion per se, so much as "the politics of personhood."   One consequence of abortion is that, in designating new life a matter of "choice," it made it easier to make judgments about which lives are worth it and which aren't. Down's syndrome?  Abort.  Cleft palate? Abort. Chinese girl? Abort.  But it's foolish to think you can raise entire populations -- not to mention generations of doctors -- to make self-interested judgments about who lives and who doesn't and expect them to remain confined to three trimesters.  The "right to choose" is now being extended beyond the womb: the step from convenience conception to convenience euthanasia is a short one, and the step from convenience euthanasia to compulsory euthanasia shorter still.

Commentators like Andrew Sullivan have attacked Ponnuru, somewhat hysterically, not for his book's argument but for its title.  In fact, the author got it from Ronald Dworkin, a liberal legal theorist, pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia, but nevertheless intellectually honest enough to admit that these are "choices for death."  They lead not just to literal death but to a societal and spiritual death, too. In The Cube and the Cathedral, George Weigel begins his lively dissection of "politics without God" with a bracing series of questions, including the following:

"Why do certain parts of Europe exhibit a curious, even bizarre, approach to death?  Why did so many of the French prefer to continue their summer vacations during the European heat wave of 2003, leaving their parents unburied and warehoused in refrigerated lockers (which were soon overflowing)?  Why is death increasingly anonymous in Germany, with no death notice in the newspapers, no church funeral ceremony, no secular memorial service -- 'as though,' Richard John Neuhaus observed, 'the deceased did not exist'?"

Update:  Wesley J. Smith offers a significant review in the July 3, 2006 issue of the Weekly Standard.   

SAME SEX MARRIAGE & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Stanley Kurtz over at National Review Online's Corner posts the following which I think will prove an accurate prophecy of what is to come if same sex marriage becomes legalized.  I have reproduced Kurtz's comments in full.

Maggie Gallagher has opened up a whole new dimension in the argument over same-sex marriage with her piece, "Banned in Boston."

If you support the traditional definition of marriage, or if you value religious liberty and freedom of speech, you ought to be very concerned by the scenario Gallagher lays out.

Scholars on the left and right agree that the gay marriage movement has raised the specter of a massive and protracted battle over religious liberty.  In states that adopt same-sex marriage, religious liberty is clearly going to lose.   The source of the problem is the flawed analogy between the battle for same-sex marriage and the sixties movement for civil rights.   Gay marriage proponents argue that sexual orientation is like race, and that opponents of same-sex marriage are therefore like bigots who oppose interracial marriage.   Once same-sex marriage becomes law, that understanding will be controlling.

So in states with same-sex marriage, religiously affiliated schools, adoption agencies, psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, etc. will be forced to choose between going out of business and violating their own deeply held beliefs.   If a religious social service agency refuses to offer counseling designed to preserve the marriage of a same-sex couple, it could lose its tax exempt status. Religious schools would either have to tolerate conduct they believed to be sinful, or face a cut-off of federal funds.   In effect, religiously affiliated organizations that oppose same-sex marriage would be treated like Bob Jones university was when it maintained a prohibition on inter-racial dating. It's already happening, as we've seen with the recent withdrawal of Boston's Catholic Charities from the adoption business.

Free speech could also be under threat, as sexual-harassment-in- the-workplace principles are used by nervous corporate lawyers to draw speech prohibitions on the marriage issue. Fear of litigation will breed self-censorship.   One expert predicts "a concerted effort to take same-sex marriage from a negative right to be free of state interference to a positive entitlement to assistance by others."

I don't think there's any doubt that such a campaign is in the offing. Just look at the news.   A campaign has been launched to prevent John McCain from delivering the graduation address at New York's New School, the chief reason being McCain's support for a state marriage amendment and his willingness to speak at Jerry Falwell's university.   I remember 1990, when there were protests against Colin Powell speaking at Harvard's commencement, ostensibly because of "Don't ask; don't tell."  Until recently, military recruiters have been banned from campuses for the same reason.

Until reading Gallagher's piece, I never made much of the use of "Don't ask; don't tell" and related issues as reasons to block speech.  To me, these excuses were convenient covers for a determination to block speech on broader grounds: opposition to Republican politicians and/or opposition to the military.   But now I see that these "excuses" have to be taken seriously in their own right.  The very fact that opposition to gay marriage can be treated as the most publicly acceptable reason to suppress someone's speech is an ominous sign.   If gay marriage is legalized, there will surely be "a concerted effort to take same-sex marriage from a negative right to be free of state interference to a positive entitlement to assistance by others."  We can be certain of that, because it's already happening.

A few proponents of same-sex marriage might endorse conscience exemptions, but they won't control the gay marriage movement as a whole. Notice that in Massachusetts, no one but Governor Romney favors a conscience exemption, and he's out of office soon.

For religious folks, the lesson in all this is clear.   There's a lot more at stake in the battle over same-sex marriage than the marriage issue itself, important as that is.   The very ability of religiously affiliated organizations to exist and operate is under threat.   Same-sex marriage will be used as a tool, not only to silence opposition, but to unstring religion itself as a force in American life.

FAMILY KICKED OUT OF BUFFET RESTAURANT FOR WASTING FOOD

Have you ever been to a buffet and walked past a table where people have just left and seen piles of food left on the plate?  Has it produced revulsion in you?  It has me, too.   Check out this AP Report:

Wendy Dershem may think twice before  leaving that egg roll on her plate at her next Chinese buffet.  The Des Moines woman, her boyfriend and her two children were kicked out of a restaurant last week after management accused her of leaving too much food on her plate.  "They told us we are not welcome there anymore," said Dershem, a repeat customer at the Dragon House buffet. "We waste too much food. But the buffet is all you can eat. And you know kids. They won't always eat everything and they want something else."

Dershem said she paid her $5.95 fee but was abruptly told to  leave after eating one plate of food.  "They just take one bite and throw it away," said cashier Lin Huyen. "They take four egg rolls and crab rangoon, take one bite of egg roll and throw the whole plate. That is wasting food."    Dershem said she was shocked by the scolding and complained to  management.  Dragon House manager Kent Cao said his restaurant offers all you can eat buffet, not all you can waste. Dershem's family took food, didn't finish it and then piled on the same food again, he said.    "Shes done that too many times," Cao said. "We would welcome  her back if she has respect and knows what she wants."

Hat tip: Drudge Report

ANN COULTER - WE NEED TO CONQUER OUR FEAR OF CONDEMNING SEEDY BEHAVIOR

Here's a great article by Ann Coulter on our inability to condemn seedy behavior for fear of seeming a hypocrite.   Definitely a must-read!!

DR. LAURA - HOW TO SURVIVE A BAD CHILDHOOD

Here's an intriguing excerpt (courtesy WorldNetDaily) from Dr. Laura's newest book Bad Childhood---Good Life:  How to Blossom and Thrive in Spite of an Unhappy Childhood.   

Richard Kirk offers an excellent article, "Hating Dr. Laura", which lays out the politically incorrect advice she offers.   Here's most of the article: 

They hate it when she downplays the importance of feelings and places moral obligation on a higher plain than emotion. 

They hate how Dr. Laura badmouths "psychobabble" and demands that callers say what they really mean when they talk about "dealing with" their "issues."

They hate it when Dr. Laura makes people feel bad about doing bad things.  

They hate it when she turns the expectations table and asks dissatisfied female callers, "How would you like to come home to you every day?" – a query inevitably followed by an extended period of silence. 

They hate it when the daily dispenser of hardcore compassion responds to "It's so hard" whiners with the callous retort, "So what?" 

They hate it when Dr. Laura answers "How do I ..." questions with straightforward replies: "How do I get over the pain?" "It takes time." "How do I stop being a complainer?" "Stop complaining." 

They hate Dr. Laura for destroying the illusion that there's an easy way to do difficult things – for not pretending that a pill or a slick technique can undo messes and avoid hurt feelings. 

They hate it when the petulant moralist employs the term "slut" or labels callers "selfish" and tells them to think about others – as if she were qualified to judge someone's "personal value system." 

They hate the fact that Dr. Laura disparages popular ideas about "venting" and "confrontation" – concepts endorsed on TV shows where problems are resolved after shouting matches that last less than five minutes. 

They hate it when she uses the term "shack-up" for relationships where couples don't pledge to stay together "in sickness and in health, as long as we both shall live" – as if their unwillingness to publicly express their commitment to each other implies a lack of commitment. 

They hate it when the impertinent shrinklette exclaims, "At least a prostitute gets paid!" 

They hate the fact that Dr. Laura puts the lives of children above the sex lives of adults – and that she has the audacity to suggest staying together for the sake of the kids. 

They hate it when she looks at custody arrangements through the eyes of children and asks parents to imagine how their offspring feel about being shuffled back and forth and "crammed" – not "blended" – into his, hers and ours families. 

They hate that Dr. Laura dismisses the adult-centered excuse, "Kids adapt," and has the gall to say that mothers who don't want to raise their children shouldn't have them. 

They especially hate it when she condenses current legal reasoning on the subject of abortion into a simple, morally indefensible proposition: "If she wants it, it's a baby. If she doesn't, it's not."

They hate when she says "Hoooah" – as if soldiers make the world a better place.

And they hate it when she says, "Do the right thing" – as if most actions aren't gloriously gray. 

Most of all they hate it when, having turned off the radio in disgust, a barely perceptible but persistent voice keeps whispering in their ears: "You know, don't you, that what Dr. Laura just said, is right?"

THE EVER-PRESENT EUGENICS TEMPTATION

Chuck Colson keeps his eye on the ever-present eugenics temptation. 

". . . what’s being promised is a world where those who are considered “unfit” never are born and, thus, never are a burden on the rest of us.  Whether we admit or not, we still seek the improvement of the “race” by identifying those who carry “undesirable” traits and preventing their births.

What we are doing to babies with Down syndrome, who have been “targeted for elimination” by doctors, governments, and insurance companies, is only the beginning.    The more we learn about the genetic basis of “undesirable” traits, the longer the list of those we “target.”

The only thing standing in the way of this are the same people who stood in the way of the old eugenics: Christians.   As Bruinius [author of Better for All the World] tells us, it was Christians, people like Billy Sunday and William Jennings Bryan, who led the opposition to eugenics in the United States.   And in Britain, it was G. K. Chesterton, the great writer.

If the “new eugenics” is to be stopped, it’s because today’s believers in “divine law” and the “sanctity of human life” are prepared to join this distinguished company.

An excerpt from the book mentioned above, Better for All the World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and  America's Quest for Racial Purity can be found here.    Chuck Colson's article links to a good Bible study, (actually a sample sermon on biotechnology) titled "Image is Everything."   It explores the significance and the ramifications of Genesis 1:26-31 and Luke 1:26-38 and is very excellent.

STEM CELL RESEARCH, PATENTS, AND MONEY!! THIS EXPLAINS A LOT!

What drives the push for embryonic stem-cell research, especially when adult stem cells show so much more promise?  One word:  MONEY!!    As the St. Paul Pioneer-Press headline put it: "Embryonic stem cells help patents, not patients."

Chuck Colson in his Breakpoint commentary, "Following the Money: Embryonic Stem Cells and Big Bucks" refers to Jean Swenson's observation that what drives the push for embryonic stem-cell research is that it

"provides greater research and patent potentials for scientists, research institutions, and biotech industry."   In other words, it's potentially far more lucrative than research involving adult stem cells. . .

A 1980 federal law allows scientists to “patent the results of publicly funded research.” They can “form biotech companies to develop patents” or “sell their patents to biotech or pharmaceutical firms.” In either case, they have a substantial financial incentive to depict embryonic stem-cell research in the most positive way possible.

That explains it!  That explains why adult-stem research and its amazing breakthroughs get minimal press coverage.  "Follow the money" proves once again to be an indispensable maxim towards a deeper grasp of what's going on. 

RESISTING THE "MONOLOGUES"

Tim Graham over at NRO posts the following note.   The WashPost puts female conservative opponents of the "Vagina Monologues" on the front page of the Style section today.  It's not bad, but it does have the same old habit of constantly employing the "conservative" label, and "Vagina" author Eve Ensler is a what?  No liberal label.  She professes to be "baffled" by opposition, because she's pro-sex.  She's good at making straw men.  It's better than having to deal with the real men.

The article reports that "The Vagina Monologues" play appears on hundreds of campuses every February and March.  It has been performed in more than 81 countries and raised more than $30 million over the years.  I am glad to hear that a solid, effective response has come forth  May those involved be empowered to stir up genuine debate!

HOLLAND TO ALLOW "BABY EUTHANASIA"

Britain's Sunday Times reports that Holland to allow ‘baby euthanasia’

Hat tip:  worldnetdaily.com

THE ABORTION QUESTION - ANNE LAMOTT vs. MOTHER TERESA

An old quote recently resurfaced and struck me with its stark realism and challenge.   It's from Mother Teresa:

"It's a very great poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

One feels the knot rise in one's stomach when the subject of abortion arises.  Mother Teresa's quote, striking as it does at the moral conscience of the nation, draws most of us up short.   

Anne Lamott wouldn't have liked it.  She takes an opposite view from Mother Teresa.  She speaks of "women whose lives had been righted and redeemed by Roe vs. Wade"  and says it is "not a morally ambiguous issue for me at all."   For her "babies are not fetuses" and further, "a woman's right to choose was nobody else's g...damn business."   

I didn't know her position on abortion until bumping into it this afternoon.  The words come from her Los Angeles Times column published 2/10/06 and republished in Common Dreams, a publication of "The Progressive Community."