tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28442975336201106842024-02-19T10:09:11.438-05:00Authentic BioethicsAuthentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.comBlogger168125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-81414273942610711192022-01-18T10:47:00.001-05:002022-01-18T10:47:21.572-05:00Democrats are nazis. Here's proof.<p>One tactic of liberal politicians and their lackeys is to accuse others of what they are doing, to distract from what they are doing.</p><p>They like to call conservatives Nazis.</p><p>Well check this out: <a href="https://www.tampafp.com/poll-nearly-half-of-democrats-support-fines-segregated-camps-and-prison-terms-for-those-who-disagree-with-them-on-covid/">https://www.tampafp.com/poll-nearly-half-of-democrats-support-fines-segregated-camps-and-prison-terms-for-those-who-disagree-with-them-on-covid/</a></p><p>Or look here: <a href="https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/covid_19_democratic_voters_support_harsh_measures_against_unvaccinated">https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/covid_19_democratic_voters_support_harsh_measures_against_unvaccinated</a></p><p>Quoting from the Tampa FP linked article:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p>55 percent of Democrats support a “proposal for federal or state governments to fine Americans who choose not to get a COVID-19 vaccine,” Rasmussen noted.</p><p>An even bigger share of Democrats, 59 percent, favor “a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.”</p><p>Almost half of Democrats – 48 percent – have given up on the First Amendment by thinking “federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.” </p><p>Similarly, 45 percent of Democrats like the idea of COVID camps, where governments could require citizens “to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.” <span style="color: #990000;">[Concentrate them in a camp.]</span></p><p>Meanwhile, 47 percent of Democrats are fine with governments “using digital devices to track unvaccinated people to ensure that they are quarantined or socially distancing from others.”</p><p>Rasmussen also found that a sizable portion of Democrats – 29 percent – would support “temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine.”</p></blockquote><p>So, here we have the privileged imposing marginalization, exclusion, penalty, separation, silencing, and surveillance on people who disagree. Vaccination apartheid, literal concentration camps and ghettoes.</p><p>Look - if masks worked, we would not have a pandemic. Given the pandemic, if the vaccines worked, the pandemic would be over. But no, we need more masking and more vaccinations.</p><p>One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.</p><p>The point is, science and every day experience proves this attitude about vaccination is stupid.</p><p>But keep those poll results in mind and consider this from the Anti Defamation League. Oh and before anybody accuses me of diminishing the horror of the Holocaust against Jews, I have always considered the phrase "Lest we forget" to be not just "so Jews never experience this again" but "so neither Jews nor ANY OTHER GROUP ever experiences this again." This is not about the Jews, it is about the Nazism.<br /></p><p>Here: <a href="https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/nazi-germany-and-anti-jewish-policy">https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/nazi-germany-and-anti-jewish-policy</a></p><p>The Nazis had book burnings, the Democrats have internet and social media giants doing their censorship. The Nazis had boycotts and confiscations of targeted people's businesses, the Democrats want to make it difficult or impossible to for certain people to work, shop, live. The Nazis made ghettoes in their cities, and eventually concentration camps, the Democrats want to do the same. The Nazis confiscated possessions, the Democrats want to tax and of course if you fail to pay the tax then they can confiscate. The Nazis had special identification practices, the Democrats talk about vaccine passports. The Nazis turned neighbors against neighbors, the Democrats want surveillance.</p><p>One thing about the poll results - you might say "only 45% supported concentration camps, which means most did not." I have not been about to find the breakdown of results, but it stands to reason a sizable chunk answered "somewhat oppose" - meaning that in this group the opposition is rather soft. The shock here is that an overwhelming majority of any American group did not "strongly oppose." At the Rasmussen Reports article, they note that 78% of Republicans and 61% of Independents "strongly oppose" this measure. </p><p>This nation has fought terrible, bloody wars to fight such beastly measures. Is it anything less than treacherous for an American to support them now? They run around calling the Jan 6 rioters "insurrectionists" and yet... what did I say at the beginning of this post?</p><p><br /></p>Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-39448847788376300872022-01-04T15:17:00.001-05:002022-01-04T15:19:55.356-05:00CDC data, mRNA science, and covid-19 vaccines<p>Over 7 years ago, I went into a premature blogging retirement because my views on many contemporary issues are not politically correct and I felt my job could become jeopardized, and I just couldn't keep up with all the new bioethical fads. And then Pope Francis came out with Amoris Laetitia and started getting rid of Pope St. John Paul II's institutes on the theology of the marriage and family - and he basically undermined all the graduate work I had done. I could spend a lot of time on that guy but I won't.</p><p>This is about covid-19 vaccines and science. </p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">CDC VAERS data</span></b></p><p>So a prominent member of congress got permanently booted from Twitter for sharing the chart you will see below. Twitter called it misleading. Let's not take Twitter's word for it - but again let's not assume that Twitter is wrong either.</p><p>I want to find out the truth.</p><p>So first off, the chart purports to represent data from the CDC. The title describes what it is attempting to show. The data are apparently obtained by using the CDC data search tool found here: <a href="https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html">https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html</a></p><p>A few notes:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>This is all deaths reported by health professionals in relation to each of the vaccines listed. There may be a small number of health professionals reporting things like "accidental death" in relation to the use of a vaccine, but that is not common. These data also do not include unreported deaths even if they were caused or related to these vaccines, because they weren't reported, which would mean the "real" numbers are somewhat higher</li><li>We do not know if people lately are being more diligent in reporting because covid-19 is so much on everyone's mind, and so more are being reported for covid-19 vaccines than others</li><li>And we do not know how many total people received each vaccine in that time period. Could be only a handful - or hundreds of millions. Considering the routine pediatric vaccination schedule in the US and the time frame, it is most likely that more people have received other vaccines than covid-19 vaccines</li><li>The period is 1990-present. "Present" is ostensibly sometime in late 2021. Still, these data show that, for instance, measles vaccines in the past 31 years were associated with a small fraction of deaths compared to the covid-19 vaccines in the past 1 year. Let's keep in mind this proportionality as we try to duplicate the numbers</li></ul><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjVYg29f849NCLRP3OB6ueTxqh1Nhg1gwG6-CLqXCbsnuLJxntpz5hPK8q1U6FtJWZylgY5Bc63oo08mdxYnlM-a9-EvQ0IaT_rJvsnq2b2-pZPyXhUN0_5EEenih4nJ1esFtL_WZGFbMaft495JPYtpuS5dbSYoV9FIrmUyNv3V-Q3pS65nWoS6aVp=s1560" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1106" data-original-width="1560" height="434" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjVYg29f849NCLRP3OB6ueTxqh1Nhg1gwG6-CLqXCbsnuLJxntpz5hPK8q1U6FtJWZylgY5Bc63oo08mdxYnlM-a9-EvQ0IaT_rJvsnq2b2-pZPyXhUN0_5EEenih4nJ1esFtL_WZGFbMaft495JPYtpuS5dbSYoV9FIrmUyNv3V-Q3pS65nWoS6aVp=w612-h434" width="612" /></a></div><div><br /></div>Using the VAERS tool, I cannot duplicate these numbers. I searched with results sorted by symptom and then by vaccine type, location US, vaccine administration dates 1990-present (1/4/2022), and symptom chosen was "death." <div><br /></div><div>I am not saying that the graph is wrong - it's just I cannot verify the actual numbers, and maybe I am doing it wrong.<div><br /></div><div>So here are my numbers in a screen grab from the VAERs tool. </div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhChBfDaMWYW1YWmIat3PCjSQqff6g3NRmEqfFlet3eujX7SJQMnGzo4SmR2PaM1eb-6Y3seMmOsk05ZHYwwfml3nHR41isX3H6JbB5sLa5n-0JkvkQB0NaVBoQrVNjokCO4Q9JvWj5hy_F3XxWiZSVIyOkP9ZmCAWI7UDojDZQgVQKxpl7ICLYRo2C=s855" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="855" data-original-width="634" height="808" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhChBfDaMWYW1YWmIat3PCjSQqff6g3NRmEqfFlet3eujX7SJQMnGzo4SmR2PaM1eb-6Y3seMmOsk05ZHYwwfml3nHR41isX3H6JbB5sLa5n-0JkvkQB0NaVBoQrVNjokCO4Q9JvWj5hy_F3XxWiZSVIyOkP9ZmCAWI7UDojDZQgVQKxpl7ICLYRo2C=w598-h808" width="598" /></a></div><div><br /></div>The proportionality of deaths illustrated in the bar graph seems consistent with these numbers. In other words, although I find only 8,339 US deaths reported for covid-19 vaccines, not over 21k (even for "all locations" it is still only 10k-ish), I also find only 67 deaths reported for the MMR and MMRV vaccines (the first M being measles), whereas the graph has 519. If my numbers are lower, they're lower across the board.</div><div><br /></div><div>From a proportionality standpoint, however, this is actually worse for covid-19 vaccines. Instead of being 40x higher than measles per the bar chart, the numbers I get for covid-19 vaccines are 125x higher.</div><div><br /></div><div>One confounding factor was that the top right column says there were 8,376 events, but the Totals row at the bottom shows 11,156. So there must be a significant number of individual deaths reported for more than one vaccine - but if so, the covid-19 vaccine would be implicated in almost every case. So I don't know what to make of the 8,376. </div><div><br /></div><div>Still - ignoring the right column for the sake of discussion, of the 11,156 total deaths reported for vaccines over the last 31 years, 75% (8,339) have been reported in the last year or so in relation to covid-19 vaccines. Deaths reported for covid-19 vaccines in 1 year are 3x higher than all other vaccines combined in over 30 years.<br /><div><br /></div></div><div>This deserves to be discussed. On the other hand, maybe I'm doing it wrong. Or interpreting it wrong.<br /><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">mRNA technology</span></b></p><p>This technology kind of creeps me out. What the mRNA vaccines do is commandeer the body's cells to make the dangerous spike protein found on the covid-19 virus, so that the immune system can respond to it, and thereby defeat the virus itself should you get infected. </p><p>I don't know why anyone thinks this is a good idea. It's like a community recruiting and indoctrinating terrorists so that law enforcement learns how to recognize and deal with them.</p><p>With traditional vaccines, someone is simply exposed to a dead virus (or bacteria for that matter) or to key components of dead viruses - so that all your body does is learn to recognize and neutralize the virus. It doesn't get programmed to make virus parts.</p><p>The inventor of the technology, Dr. Robert Malone, is part of this movement: <a href="https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org/">https://doctorsandscientistsdeclaration.org/</a></p><p>And he is leery about the mRNA vaccines especially in children: <a href="https://fml.lol/joe-rogan-podcast-episode/">https://fml.lol/joe-rogan-podcast-episode/</a></p><p>And there is at least one traditional covid-19 vaccine in the works by these guys. <a href="https://www.novavax.com/">https://www.novavax.com/</a> Hopefully they'll have theirs out in a few months. </p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Final thoughts</b></span></p><p>So the available covid-19 vaccines are good at reducing the average severity of symptoms and the likelihood of death.</p><p>They do not prevent people from getting infected.</p><p>They do not stop people who get infected from getting sick (even if they make the experience milder).</p><p>Some people who get sick end up in the hospital. A few still die.</p><p>They do not stop infected/sick people from spreading the virus. In fact, because they don't feel so bad are are unmasked, they may be spreading it more than the unvaccinated. Just logical.</p><p>They are not very good with respect to new emerging variants, and may even push the evolution of new strains that are resistant to the vaccine.</p><p>Their long-term safety is not well characterized. In fact, their short-term adverse event profile is not well characterized either. There is something going on with the reported deaths data in the CDC VAERS system.</p><p>All things considered, vaccine-related policy - the bioethics of issue - and especially the use of these vaccines in children, does not seem to make sense to me. Happy to discuss it.</p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /><br /></div><br /><br /><p></p><p><br /><br /></p></div></div>Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-43319084367549155752014-09-26T17:32:00.000-04:002014-09-26T17:32:09.303-04:00Caring children of aging parents - or selfish ingrates?Brussels, Belgium.<br />
<br />
The place where, when Francis and Anna were young teenagers, the Nazis began the Belgian part of their atrocities known collectively as the Holocaust almost immediately upon conquering it.<br />
<br />
You know. The Holocaust. The Jews being rounded up and enslaved and exterminated. The Holocaust, meaning the Jewish experience, is the largest part of the Nazi atrocities. Nazi euthanasia of undesirables began first, then Jews were determined to be undesirable, and it continued with Catholics and other Christians when Jews became scarce.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia#Nazi_Euthanasia_Program_.28Action_T4.29" target="_blank">Nazi euthanasia is based on the notion of the right to death</a>. Of course, they believed that the State owned the right to kill. But even pro-euthanasia and pro-assisted suicide laws today show that it is the state that governs the right to kill. It is the state who decides, among those who kill innocent people, who are to be prosecuted for murder and who are to be allowed to kill with impunity.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2770249/Healthy-OAP-couple-die-assisted-suicide-Husband-wife-support-three-children.html" target="_blank">Francis and Anna are old, but basically in good health. They each fear living in loneliness should the other one die first, and so have decided to die together.</a> They will be euthanized voluntarily even though there is nothing wrong with them except fear of something that might not happen.<br />
<br />
You would think their loving children would step up and say, Hey Mom and Dad, don't worry! We'll all miss whichever of you should go first, but the other should not fear loneliness because you still have us and your grandchildren! We'll take care of you!<br />
<br />
No, they said, in effect, You know what, we can't take care of either of you should one of you die, so we're totally behind your decision to kill yourselves.<br />
<br />
The kids, in fact, have done the legwork and found a practitioner willing to kill their parents.<br />
<br />
My God, if Belgium were a sane nation, the children and practitioner would be considered murderers. This is murder-for-hire. The doctor is a hit man. In another age, this would be a plot line for Columbo or Kojak or Murder She Wrote.<br />
<br />
But, those old fashioned shows are long gone in 2014, and now it is the State in Belgium that owns the right to kill, and has decided that such children and practitioners are not to be prosecuted.<br />
<br />
Francis and Anna are, basically, cowards. They fear living alone. They fear living alone and wiping out their savings on staying alive alone. They would commit suicide but "it takes courage," they say, to jump out a window or into a river or hang yourself. But getting a doctor to give you a lethal injection "does not take courage."<br />
<br />
Don't Francis and Anna remember the Nazis? They were 15 and 12, respectively, when the Nazis conquered them, and 20 and 17 when the Nazis were defeated. Only 5 years later, with the Nazi atrocities still fresh on everyone's minds, they would be married.<br />
<br />
What were they doing during the occupation? Were they Nazi sympathizers? Resisters? Colluders? What? Given that they're cowards, I would expect they're the kind that ratted on their neighbors out of fear of the Germans.<br />
<br />
And their kids were oh so eager to help their parents. The parents can't wait for their death day. And who could blame them, with kids like that?<br />
<br />
Hey, I wonder... if Francis and Anna's savings are not used up on living alone, who gets the money? Just wondering.<br />
<br />
The Brits are looking at this aghast. One politician said, "This is an example of a very dangerous use of euthanasia in entirely inappropriate circumstances. What it demonstrates is that the most stringent safeguards would be needed if this was going to be legalised in the UK."<br />
<br />
No, M'Lord, what it demonstrates is that the definition of appropriate circumstances cannot be limited by cruel people who want to limit other people's autonomy and take away the right to kill innocent people for money and the right to be rid of burdensome relatives for a fee. Cruel people like yourself, M'Lord.<br />
<br />A British celebrity has noted that the casual practice of euthanasia in Belgium had developed from a law designed initially for hard cases. She said, "'Once you allow a doctor to assist you to end your life when the patient defines when they are suffering I think you are opening the door to an extension of that law." <br /><br />
No kidding.<br />
<br />
"It may be everyone's intention that initially it will be only for a small group of people but how you monitor that and how you enforce that is practically impossible."<br />
<br />Exactly.<br />
<br />
"It is terrifying where this could go," she added.<br />
<br />
Well, that just depends on your perspective. I think it might be exciting to someone who is a kid with a burdensome relative with a savings account you'd inherit, a coward facing some common hardship, or a doctor who charges a fee for the service.<br />
<br />
Or a Nazi.<br />
<br />
I think the Nazis never relinquished control of Belgium.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-78391010703466338912014-09-17T18:22:00.001-04:002014-09-18T17:43:54.486-04:00Does everything have to be sooooo over the top?Some folks in London are "shocked and saddened" that people found their idea to serve "Death Row Dinners" disgusting.<br />
<br />
I will tell them precisely where their interesting idea went bad. But first a little background.<br />
<br />
Here's a version of the news from Fox about t<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/09/17/enjoy-your-last-meal-at-death-row-dinners-pop-up-restaurant/" target="_blank">he social media backlash</a>. These blokes, whoever they are, thought it would be a good idea to start a restaurant that catered to the notion of what people would like for their last dinner ever. That is to say, if you knew you when you were going to die and could have anything in the world for your last meal, what would it be?<br />
<br />
They called it Death Row Dinners.<br />
<br />
Their materials showed an array of somber and not very attractive mug shots, presumably of people who are terrible criminals and guilty of God knows what, with a placard around their necks featuring the menu of their last meal choice. I don't know - perhaps that was the restaurant's actual menu.<br />
<br />
They described the dining experience with words related to being in jail, being arrested, being sentenced to death, and all that.<br />
<br />
It was over the top with the whole execution motif.<br />
<br />
Here's their apology:<br />
<br />
“We're shocked and saddened by the response to Death Row Dinners and are genuinely very sorry for any offence caused. The pop up [a kind of restaurant in the UK] is intended to explore the concept of last meals; anyone who has ever been to a dinner party has probably had this conversation – what would they love their last meal to be. In light of the response to the idea we are considering our next steps and will update everyone with our decision.”<br />
<br />
Notice what they're shocked and saddened by. Shocked, they were, that anyone was offended.<br />
<br />
Yes, we've all sat around the dinner table discussing our favorite foods, and how we'd like to part from earthly life if food were a part of that event.<br />
<br />
But this is where these entrepreneurs went wrong.<br />
<br />
They went over the top with the death experience and death row and death and jail and death. Did I mention death? "What you'd like for your last meal" really isn't about the death experience at all - it's about the meal. Those conversations are about favorite foods. By making the dining experience about dying, disgusting criminals, their unspoken disgusting deeds deserving death, their deaths, their last means, and relating all of that to your diners' deaths and making them feel like they're also disgusting criminals - that is, by keeping death and gruesomeness so in-you-face in over-the-top fashion, they destroyed all possible enjoyment of the food.<br />
<br />
They propose this as a restaurant.<br />
<br />
People go to a restaurant to enjoy life, and food.<br />
<br />
Ugh. And they're shocked, shocked I tell you!, that this caused offense.<br />
<br />
I'm shocked, shocked!, that they're shocked.<br />
<br />
This may seem totally unrelated, but I am officially also not a fan of the new Star Trek movies anymore for a very similar reason. They have their good points, but they are also so over the top, that as a long-time Star Trek fan, they have robbed my enjoyment of the Star Trek universe. There was some element of believability in the original series and the Next Generation. But the new stories - totally unbelievable. The characters are good, the cast is good, the stories have some good points. But things are too big, too flashy, too dramatic, too stylized - it's too over the top. I mean seriously, just how big is Kirk's Enterprise, that he has to run miles to get to the warp core, and what the heck is that thing he has to kick, and why is there soooo much wasted and unnecessary SPACE around it, in a fairly early starship design?<br />
<br />
But back to food.... Does everything have to be so sweet that it's sickening? Hot sauces that are so hot they put people in the hospital?<br />
<br />
Does everything have to be extreme in order to be good?<br />
<br />
We have lost all sense of virtue, which holds a middle course. We do not know what "just right" is anymore because we don't know what "right" is to begin with.<br />
<br />
Those entrepreneurs are SHOCKED that people are upset. Really. SHOCKED? Really? Their reaction is over the top too. Extreme.<br />
<br />
That anyone could be shocked that people are disgusted by disgusting things associated with what could be their very favorite foods is itself shocking.<br />
<br />
By the way, the UK is so disgusted with the very idea of "death row" it doesn't have a death penalty. A fine place to start a restaurant called Death Row Dinners.<br />
<br />
<br />Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-26346553661383048692014-08-23T10:34:00.002-04:002014-08-23T10:36:21.249-04:00What if these people never had been born...?TheRichest.com, a website full of trivia and gossip that can really drain if not pollute your brain, has published a l<a href="http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/8-famous-people-who-almost-werent-born/" target="_blank">ist of 8 famous people</a> who narrowly avoided being aborted. Surely there are more, or at least people who have had lives that have been rich for themselves and have enriched others. But the fame of these people underscores the fact that abortion robs not only the baby of a life, but the rest of us of the wonderful things they might accomplish.<br />
<br />
These people are:<br />
<ul>
<li>Sean Lennon</li>
<li>Nick Cannon (the one name I didn't recognize because I don't follow pop culture much - Mariah Carey's husband, which you all might know)</li>
<li>Tim Tebow</li>
<li>Cher</li>
<li>Justin Bieber</li>
<li>Celine Dion</li>
<li>Steve Jobs</li>
<li>Pope St. John Paul II</li>
</ul>
You can go read their stories at TheRichest.<br />
<br />
That article, between the lines, allows several conclusions:<br />
<ul>
<li>The very availability of abortion makes considering it an obligation. I have heard of families faced with an unintended or difficult pregnancy where the first thing decided was, "Well, you're NOT getting an abortion!" I mean, really, the idea that it is the first thing considered, instead of being the last resort, even by people who would not choose it, really says something about our society.</li>
<li>These are only 8 of the most famous to people in the US, although many have international reputations. How many others are unsung or obscure but nonetheless accomplishing great things? Of the tens of millions aborted in the last 40 years in the US alone, how many others have we been deprived of? How many in the hundreds of millions worldwide?</li>
<li>The probabilities used in calculating whether an abortion makes sense are just that. Probabilities. John Paul II would "probably" have had a hard short life with heart problems, but he didn't. Celine Dion's family was poor, and another child (her) would have been a big hardship. If it's an 80% chance of a bad outcome for the unborn child or his family, that sounds pretty much like a no-brainer for an abortion - but what is lost in that 20%?</li>
<li>It's never too late to change your mind, prior to getting the procedure.</li>
</ul>
I said the other day that the idea of "love your neighbor as yourself" means considering all other human beings, even the unborn, and so connected to ourselves as "to be" ourselves.<br />
<br />
And then there's that <a href="http://authenticbioethics.blogspot.com/2014/05/that-viral-abortion-video.html" target="_blank">video of a woman undergoing an abortion</a> and being proud of it. It was "right for her." Her and what she called her "awesome" power to make a life - and destroy it. And what exactly did she destroy? A great singer? A visionary entrepreneur? A powerful saint? What gives her that right?<br />
<br />
And is an abortion really a private act after all, when it affects the rest of us so much?<br />
<br />Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-84283832951467358952014-08-21T16:36:00.003-04:002014-08-21T16:36:54.877-04:00Dawkins proves my point about atheistic bioethicsFirst... it's been several months since my last post. I didn't realize it was that long!<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ah, life. May involved my oldest daughter graduating from college and a trip to California for that. June saw a trip to Maryland, to bring my wife to her last summer session for her master's in liberal arts and the Great Books, followed by attending to the needs of my family in her absence, as well as work. The summer was rather busy, with August including my wife's graduation. Lots of good things happening!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I have often said that atheistic ethics, and bioethics in particular, leads to different conclusions that ethics in a culture formed by religion because of the different starting points.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And it is difficult to lump religion together, because their starting points and their concepts of God differ. In his remarks yesterday, President Obama said that ISIS does not represent any religion - because no concept of a just God would tolerate their behavior. Oh, but Mr President, they DO represent a religion and they are doing precisely what their sacred writings demand of them. Just because they have murdered many Shiites and Sunnis does not mean they do not represent that religion - it just means ISIS believes that those particular Shiites and Sunnis are infidels. So you see, "religion" is not a good umbrella term. Lots of bad religions, and good religions used by bad people for bad ends.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With that said, if one holds that there is a God, and that human beings by their superior capacity for intellectual and creative thought that all other critters on this planet lack resemble God in his highest attributes and powers (which are impeded but not totally lacking in people with Down's syndrome), then one would reason ethically and logically in one way.</div>
<div>
<br />If one holds that there is no God, and that human life is an accident of mindless processes of the material universe and its inexorable physical laws, then one would reason ethically and logically in another way.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The premises are what determine the conclusions.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Famous atheist <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus" target="_blank">Richard Dawkins has recently said</a> it would be immoral to give birth to a baby with Down's syndrome if the woman could get an abortion instead. He has defended his position as "logical."</div>
<div>
<br />And he is 80% right - IF his premise that God does not exist is right. The child will have a short life that will be full of hardship, compared to someone "normal." And the parents and other loved ones will have financial, emotional, and other hardships and inconveniences as well. And society has to be reminded that there are those less fortunate that sap our resources and attention and make us remember that we are human beings and not animals after all, because we can't just kill them after they're born. Of course, I know several families with Down's syndrome children, who note that there are wonderful dimensions of this genetic condition, too. Those dimensions would be lost - but on the whole, it would be "better" for all concerned that the baby be aborted.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The 20% in which he is wrong comes from the fact that if God does not exist, then he has no authority whatsoever to tell anyone else in the world what is moral and immoral. About ANYTHING. The final decision of morality has to reside with the person making that decision. He can have his opinion, but pontificating about what is and isn't moral is just him trying to assume the position of a religious authority and impose his morality on everyone. You can agree with him and show me how he reasons well or whatever - but there are other sides to the story and particulars of individual circumstances that he and you do not know, and ultimately, you <i>can </i>offer your opinion and advice, but <i>cannot </i>determine the right and wrong of any individual's decisions. Period. It would be wrong to impose your morality on anyone else.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ultimately, if there is no God, then the morality of giving birth to a Down's baby is determined by the person who makes the final decision about it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, the balance sheet is in Dawkins' favor in certain respects - but his moral authority is zero and everyone is free to disagree with him and declare with as much authority as he that the opposite choice is the more moral.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But what if Dawkins' premise is wrong? Then, all living human individuals, from the moment the exist as living human individuals, are morally indistinct from each other - that is, ALL others have the same moral standing before God and "I" do, and "my" ethical decisions have to reflect that fact. Loving one's neighbor "as oneself" is not "as much as one loves oneself" but "as if that other person was you" - as if your bond to the other was so profound any harm done to him would be harm done to yourself and any good done to him would be good done to yourself.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I knew a guy in high school who loved a particular rock band "as himself." His girlfriend said that the band was "alright" - which was not good enough, and he took it personally, and they broke up over it. So, when we see someone being treated unjustly, even a stranger, do we take it personally, as if we ourselves were treated unjustly?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I am sickened by Dawkins because I believe if he knew me he would have wanted me to be aborted, too. Not because I have Down's, because I don't, but because I have some other intellectual defect that is poisoning society, namely, the idiocy of religious faith. Religion has to be a much huger drain on society than Down's - because hundreds of millions of Americans have religion of some kind, but only one in 1000 children have Down's. And someone like me is part of the problem. But mostly it would be because I have the audacity to say he's wrong.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What's the difference between what Dawkins advocates and ISIS? Only the target of who they believe deserves to live and who doesn't.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-88295893275385359272014-05-09T10:41:00.001-04:002014-05-10T11:43:17.107-04:00Let the Conservative Frenzy Feeding Upon Pope Francis Begin Again - Updates<a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_REL_VATICAN_UN" target="_blank">Here is an article by the AP</a>, highlighting some of the <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/may/documents/papa-francesco_20140509_consiglio-nazioni-unite.html" target="_blank">recent comments by Pope Francis</a>, and taking them out of context.<br />
<br />
The first thing taken out of context are the two words quoted in the headline: POPE DEMANDS 'LEGITIMATE REDISTRIBUTION' OF WEALTH.<br />
<br />
First of all, the Pope did not "demand" anything. Shame on Nicole Winfield, the reporter, and her AP editors. SHAME.<br />
<br />
I would like to point out that the Pope's comments are in an address to folks at the UN. As such, these comments have very little doctrinal or disciplinary authority. Popes almost never make "demands" on these occasions, and Popes rarely make "demands" of secular organizations in any case.<br />
<br />
Secondly, the Pope did NOT mention a redistribution of "wealth." Shame also on DRUDGE also for doing the same thing. Look, putting the word "wealth" into the Pope's mouth in this context is simply SPIN and not reporting. Why not say "economic benefits" - the Pope's actual words? Because those words are not as sensational. DRUDGE. Really.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/09/pope-francis-demands-legitimate-redistribution-of-wealth" target="_blank">Breitbart parrots the AP language</a>. Way to go Breitbart. I can't say "shame" because this is what your organization is really about - not truth, but making your enemies look bad. You're using liberal political tactics to promote so-called conservative policies. As of 10:30 AM EDT, the comments are living up to true Breitbart form. A couple of people try to point out that the AP story is misleading, and they get slammed. Outlets like Breitbart are driving Catholics like me away.<br />
<br />
So, the Pope's words were a "legitimate redistribution of economic benefits." There is a difference. Of course the very enlightened and educated and unbigoted and fair and even tempered folks who like to throw fits at places like Breitbart.com would disagree and call me a democrat-loving Marxist for pointing out the difference. But who cares? There IS a difference, and denying it is a denial of reality.<br />
<br />
"Redistribution of wealth" means taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who do not. Rob or at least coercively extort from the rich to give to the poor. The Pope did NOT say that. "Economic benefits" can mean so much more than "wealth," and may not even mean "money." It can mean using tax money to, I don't know, run libraries, community centers, health clinics, and museums; provide low interest loans to get housing, cars, and such; and all sorts of things that poor people cannot actually afford in their present state, which if they could, would elevate all of society. The State could sponsor organizations like Habitat for Humanity, which rehabilitates housing for poor people. And organizations that go to poor countries to educate children, train adults, and improve people's lives.<br />
<br />
The resources for such things do not always trickle down - if they did, then the Pope wouldn't be encouraging the State to step in.<br />
<br />
People who gain wealth tend to want to keep it for themselves, because gaining it is what they set out to do. There is an inherent resistance to "trickle-down" in greed-based economies. There is. Of course, rich people do spend money, and in that sense it trickles down to some degree. But rich people generally tend to occupy themselves with turning their wealth into more and greater wealth, which does not really trickle down so much. Look, if you had income of $10 million, would you simply SPEND or give away $9.8 million and save the rest for retirement? No, you'd invest, like, 9 million of it, protecting it from trickle-down, and spend the rest on lavish living. Maybe give some way for tax purposes or something.<br />
<br />
The AP story does eventually quote more of the statement in question, but again it is out of context. The Pope was careful to frame the statement with the story of Zaccheus, whom the Pope notes acted freely in caring for the poor. The Pope pointed out, "The account of Jesus and Zacchaeus teaches us that <b>above and beyond economic and social systems and theories</b>, there will always be <b>a need to promote generous, effective and practical openness to the needs of others</b>." (I added the bold.)<br />
<br />
The Pope then says, "Jesus does <b>not</b> ask Zacchaeus to change jobs nor does he condemn his financial activity; he simply inspires him to put everything, freely yet immediately and indisputably, at the service of others."<br />
<br />
So, I must ask the AP, if JESUS does not make DEMANDS of Zaccheus, how on earth do you interpret the Pope's comments, which he frames in mentioning this fact, as a demand? Seriously!<br />
<br />
Promoting the "generous, effective and practical openness to the needs of others" is hardly a demand.<br />
<br />
I think what's really missing is an examination of the word "legitimate." What might the Pope mean by his encouragement of "legitimate" redistribution of "economic benefits"? Hmmmm.<br />
<br />
We have lost the capacity to think clearly and rationally.<br />
<br />
UPDATES <br />
<br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/09/pope-francis-should-stick-to-doctrine-stay-away-from-economic-redistribution/?intcmp=latestnews" target="_blank">John Moody at Fox has bared his teeth</a>. He has the audacity as to tell the Pope his job and that he has exceeded his authority. Hypocrite. Moody exceeds his authority and expertise by doing so. He also proposes that the Catholic church, unlike other religions, should pay taxes. His superficiality officially makes him someone not to take seriously - about anything.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, at Breitbart, the story has thankfully moved down toward the bottom of their page. But in 13 hours, the number of comments has swelled by a factor of over 30 (standing at over 3000), and most of them are vitriolic bigotry.<br />
<br />
Conservative News Service (cnsnews.com) <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/pope-urges-legitimate-redistribution-wealth" target="_blank">reposts the AP story</a> with Ms Winfield's by-line, but at least they change "demand" in the headline to "urges," which is definitely closer to the Pope's intent. <br />
<br />Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-34769638327729153082014-05-06T18:12:00.002-04:002014-05-06T18:12:46.188-04:00That viral abortion videoI get discouraged with this blog and go months without posting anything. It's not that there's nothing to say, it's just that people do not know how to reason ethically, and it shows. And it's rather disheartening pointing it out all the time. It is sad work watching the decline of civilization into barbarity.<br />
<br />
If you read the reactions to the Supreme Court's decision on prayers to open town council meetings, you can see that people wallow in wanting law to create what justice means because the law isn't in favor of their opinions, but do so from the standpoint of a sense of injustice regarding what the law does say. So, law cannot create justice, but they want it to. <br />
<br />
No, the law should reflect justice, which is higher to and superior to any human law. Because justice is God's law. Anyone who denies that God exists and claims that there is a "justice" higher than positive laws is speaking with a forked tongue. If God does not exist, then all we have are positive laws, and then might makes right.<br />
<br />
But I digress.<br />
<br />
Here's<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/06/abortion-clinic-stands-behind-employee-whose-video-procedure-has-gone-viral/" target="_blank"> a Fox News story about the woman who made a video of herself undergoing an abortion</a>. The article says she did it to help de-stigmatize abortion.<br />
<br />
A million abortions a year in this country - <a href="http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/uslifetimeab.html" target="_blank">between one quarter and one third of US women</a> have had one - powerful politicians trumptet abortion as the cornerstone of women's rights - Planned Parenthood has the power to bully charitable organizations into supporting them - and abortion is stigmatized? Ugh. It is part of the establishment. Women who want abortions are a protected class. And this woman speaks as though they're victims.<br />
<br />But this is what bothers me. She said, "I don't feel like a bad person. I don't feel sad. I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby. I can make a life." Let that sink in a minute. She can make a life. That's why she needed an abortion, after all! She made a life, and she's in awe of her own power! <br />
<br />
It's a life that she made. I guess if she made it, she can unmake it, too: "I knew what I was going to do was right, because it was right for me, and no one else."<br />
<br />
"Right for me."<br />
<br />
OK, and if it's "right for me" to attempt to stop you in getting one, through legal means, of course, how would you "feel" about that? Would I be interfering with your rights to "feel" de-stigmatized?<br />
<br />
Honestly, this moral relativism is really for the people with the narrowest minds.<br />
<br />
She appeals to a sense of justice and ethics and rightness that is above the stigma of abortion - based on the fact that getting one was "right for me and no one else."<br />
<br />
One day, we will decide that any human life that has been made can be unmade by anyone else, provided one has a good enough reason to unmake it. That is, murder will not be defined as the intentional inflicted death of an innocent person, but redefined as killing someone without sufficient cause. Murder defenses would cease to be about proving whodunit, although proof of innocence may be a viable defense, and would be more about proving the sufficiency (or lack thereof) of the reason for killing. "Sure I did it, but I have a good reason." <br />
<br />
Just like this woman. She got an abortion and "feels" good about it, because she had a good reason. She thought it through, convinced herself it was a good idea, and did it. Of course, in abortion, determining the sufficiency of the reason is solely up to the woman. <br />
<br />
It's just a matter of time. We are probing the edges of the new definition of murder with euthanasia and so-called ethicists floating the idea of infanticide. It's only a matter of time.Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-50066481628495140722014-01-14T10:07:00.001-05:002014-01-14T12:25:40.350-05:00Christie's problems - further thoughts vs ObamaChristie is accused of - horrors! - being political! And using his power to punish political rivals - not that some mayor of Fort Lee, NJ, is any kind of real rival. Note that I am not defending Christie, but he is a politician, and it is fairly traditional in human history to use one's political power in such ways. It's not good - but it's not really unexpected. Would that our politicians were all decent, ethical people.<br />
<br />
Yet, compare what he did to the way Obama has used the IRS. We are talking about the virtually all-powerful money collecting arm of the US government, on which depends the financial solvency of the nation and the collection of TRILLIONS of dollars.<br />
<br />
The IRS has systematically targeted political rivals and organizations that are at odds with the Obama administration.<br />
<br />
This has gone one for YEARS, lots of Obama's political rivals have suffered, it involves politics at the highest levels and political punishments of the most insidious kind.<br />
<br />
Christie's state officials closed a lane of the George Washington Bridge.<br />
<br />
Let me tell you, I commuted from NJ to NY for virtually the entire Clinton administration and for part of Obama's. Whenever either of those guys was in NY, traffic got snarled. Every time. It didn't matter where in NY they were or if they used the Hudson River crossings or even when.<br />
<br />
Also, NJ representives in Washington are "auditing" the Christie administration and their use of federal money after hurricane Sandy. The timing is noteworthy. Is not Democrat Representative Frank Pallone engaging in activities that could be called political punishment? Don't kid yourself - they moan about how terrible Christie is for punishing political rivals and engange in that very activity themselves in retaliation. Maybe it's justice in a certain sense - but I would say it's kind of like playground justice and not anything becoming our civil "leaders."<br />
<br />
Oh, and let's not forget that<a href="http://authenticbioethics.blogspot.com/2012/07/rahm-emmanuel-and-chicago-values.html" target="_blank"> Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, former Obama Chief of Staff, banned any new Chick-Fil-A stores from opening in his fifedom</a>. That's not a political reprisal?<br />
<br />
This is all modern ethics in action. It's not bioethics per se. But it reflects the state of our society's capacity for ethical thinking.<br />
<br />Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-84516790497712933532014-01-10T10:43:00.000-05:002014-01-10T10:43:19.034-05:00Obama vs Christie, or Benghazi vs the GW BridgeI am only a lukewarm fan of Gov. Christie, and I speak as a resident of the governor's state. What I mean is, I am not going to defend the guy with any kind of vigor if he gets himself into trouble. In fact, I'm actually somewhat relieved that heir-apparent Hillary Clinton may have to face someone else in 2016.<br />
<br />
I do find it strange, though, that lane closures and snarled traffic - I hear there may have been a death related to it on account of traffic delaying emergency medical services - as a political punishment is causing him so much difficulty. And this after he basically ensured NJ would vote for Obama after hurricane Sandy - not that NJ would have voted otherwise, but I believe it would have been way closer. This scandal may END his political career!<br />
<br />
Within days of this news coming out, the Federal Prosecutor (read: Obama lackey - or perhaps a Hillary lackey!) has launched an investigation. Heads are beginning to roll already, with Christie firing the staff member behind the lane closures.<br />
<br />
In constrast, our consulate in Benghazi - legally the equivalent of US territory - was attacked and burned and our citizens killed, with evidence suggesting the knowledge and intentional inaction by our State Department and perhaps even our president. He paraded the Ambassador to the UN - as if that's the person who would know - to float the bogus story that it was due to a ridiculous video that was "insulting" to Islam. At any rate, the response by our government was to do virtually NOTHING.<br />
<br />
Our nation gets attacked, people are murdered by our enemies, there's a clear cover-up, and Obama gets re-elected.<br />
<br />
Then, when Gen. Petraeus is set to testify, he suddenly gets embroiled in a sex scandal and for personal reasons cannot testify.<br />
<br />Then, when Sec. Clinton is set to testify, she suddenly "falls" and "hits her head" right behind one of her ears - fairly severely it seems, almost as if someone hit her with a blunt instrument - and has to delay her testimony. And then she gives the party line.<br />
<br />
And now, a year and a half later, there still hasn't been any kind of real investigation into these affairs. <br />
<br />
And Obama's career hasn't ended.<br />
<br />
Bad traffic versus an attack on our territory. No way does someone who punishes a local politician deserve to become president! But, allow a hostile force to attack our country? Sure! Elect the guy!<br />
<br />
It's interesting. I may just be a little paranoid by nature, but I believe what we are witnessing is a classic example of "discredit your rivals by accusing them of the exact thing you're doing." Politically punish your rivals by accusing them of the dishonorable act of punishing their political rivals. Use Nazi tactics to accuse them of being Nazis. Bully them through accusing them of bullying others.<br />
<br />
We as a nation have lost our ability to think clearly and ethically.<br />
<br />
If Christie is guilty, then shame on him, and his career should probably end. But what of Obama? Where's our nation's ethical compass with regard to him?<br />
<br />
Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-83257303295634253162013-12-21T13:03:00.002-05:002013-12-21T13:03:50.461-05:00Christmas Gifts for Atheists?At Fox News, William Lane Craig has an article titled, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/13/christmas-gift-for-atheists-five-reasons-why-god-exists/" target="_blank">"A Christmas Gift for Atheists: Five Reasons Why God Exists."</a> While as a Catholic theologian I agree with Mr Craig's reasoning, I disagree with him that these arguments will well received by atheists.<br />
<br />
Let me summarize his arguments.<br />
<br />
The first reason is, "God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe." This argument relates well to St Thomas' famous First Cause, Prime Mover, and Necessary Agent arguments. A universe full of things and motion that do not need to exist of themselves, and indeed cannot, suggests that there is a transcendent, all powerful Creator. Science cannot offer a better explanation. Prominent and brilliant atheists will respond, "Yet." That is, science cannot offer a better explanation <i>yet</i>. And such atheists already propose a kind of circularity of time and space that they believe circumvents the need for a First Cause (a la <i>Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time</i>).<br />
<br />
The second reason is, "God provides the best reason for the fine-tuning of the universe," which relates to St Thomas' Fifth Way, pertaining to the governance of the universe. In addition to harmony, St Thomas adds that things both sentient and non-living act towards ends that are reasonable, as if there were some intelligent participant in the events of the universe. Atheists poo-poo this and reduce it to obedience to physical laws and evolution.<br />
<br />
The third is, "God provides the best explanation of objective moral values and duties," which I basically agree with. Without God, there is no objective morality possible - it all reduces to subjective goals and judgments of "good." I have argued this many times; just search "atheism" or "atheist" on this blog to see. To a certain extent, this third reason relates to St Thomas' Fourth Way, that of the gradation of things - we see goodness in everything, but there must be something that is perfectly good, goodness itself, in which all good things participate in some way. But the atheist could say that there doesn't have to be an objective moral order or an objective perfect good, as long as we have laws and we all try to get along. And therein, for me, lies the problem. Because "law" is malleable by those in power, and so it becomes a matter of might making right and tyranny. Atheism ends in tyranny - or at best, anarchy.<br />
<br />
The fourth reason is, "God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection." While I agree with this statement, I don't think I'd find it especially compelling if I were an atheist. After all, only if the apostles had a firm conviction of the resurrection of Jesus would they do what they did - no one invites persecution and poverty, torture and death, unless one holds firmly as true the thing that is ticking people off. But the atheist could say, "Maybe they were just insane." It's convenient and it also explains the facts, and since they hold as a premise that God does not exist, it is the only explanation that actually fits the facts.<br />
<br />
The fifth reason is, "God can be personally known and experienced." Yes, but unless an atheist personally experiences God, he will not give any credence to those who claim to have personally experienced God. And if he does personally experience God, he is likely to attribute some other cause to the experience, something that could be explained by science, if science had the right instruments and knowledge to figure it out.<br />
<br />
So although I agree with Mr. Craig and hope and pray he has good results with this approach, I think it may not really work as well as he believes it may. After all, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=atheist+on+aquinas+five+ways&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a" target="_blank">atheists have been dealing with St Thomas' Five Ways</a> for about 800 years now, and Mr. Craig doesn't really advance the argument in a compelling way.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-23102263061953639822013-12-17T10:32:00.001-05:002013-12-17T10:32:38.529-05:00More on the economic - and ethical - consistency between Francis and his predecssorsIt turns out I was right - here's something from <a href="http://ethikapolitika.org/2013/12/16/benedict-defends-francis-markets-ethics/" target="_blank">Ethica Politica that quotes Benedict XVI</a>, writing while he was Cardinal prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.<br />
<br />
Nothing particularly new here. I missed it because it wasn't a papal document while he was pope, and so it didn't show up in my search of the Vatican website for "capitalism."<br />
<br />
The writings of Cardinal Ratzinger appeared as a 1985 symposium titled, Church and Economy in Dialogue. It features other cardinals and a speech by John Paul II to the symposium participants.<br />
<br />
You can find it here: <a href="http://ordosocialis.de/pdf/lroos/K%20u%20W%20in%20Dialog/dialoenga4neu.pdf">http://ordosocialis.de/pdf/lroos/K%20u%20W%20in%20Dialog/dialoenga4neu.pdf</a><br />
<br />
It is worth reading by anyone who wants clarity as to whether the Church supports any particular economic theory. In short: Without the participants in an economy acting morally - with virtue and ethical standards that consider the big picture of "we're all human beings and we're all in this together" - ANY economic system will be fraught with injustice and exploitation.<br />
<br />
And that is the common thread of magisterial texts on the subject, and with which Pope Francis is very much in line.Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-69399927817200335212013-12-10T11:25:00.001-05:002013-12-10T11:25:45.138-05:00Pope Francis vs His Predecessors on Capitalism, Part 2So yesterday we saw that ever since the birth of capitalism, the Popes and also the bishops (in the documents of Vatican II), have not ceased to point out the deficiencies of that economic philosophy. We heard from Leo XIII in <i>Rerum Novarum</i> - which is a long document only tiny parts of which were presented. There is much in there of relevance, cited by succeeding popes. We also heard from Pius XI, John XXIII, Vatican II, and Paul VI. Unbridled capitalism was understood as liberalism, not conservativism, and seen as the equally defective but opposite error as marxism/communism/socialism.<br />
<br />
Now let us hear from John Paul II. 1991 was the 100th anniversary of <i>Rerum Novarum</i>, and the occasion of him writing an encyclical on the topic, <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html" target="_blank">Centesimus Annus.</a> Referring to <i>Rerum Novarum</i>, John Paul II writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[9]... A workman's wages should be sufficient to enable him to support himself, his
wife and his children. "If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman
accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford no
better, he is made the victim of force and injustice".<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"><sup><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html#$P" name="-P"></a></sup></span> [<i>The quote is from</i> Rerum Novarum <i>n.131</i>.]</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"><sup><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html#$P" name="-P"></a></sup></span>Would that these words, written at a time when what has been called
<b>"unbridled capitalism"</b> was pressing forward, <b>should not have to be repeated
today with the same severity</b>. Unfortunately, <b>even today</b> one finds instances of
contracts between employers and employees which <b>lack reference to the most
elementary justice</b> regarding the employment of children or women, working hours,
the hygienic condition of the work-place and fair pay; and this is the case
despite the <i>International Declarations </i>and <i>Conventions</i> on the
subject
and the <i>internal laws </i>of States. <b>The Pope attributed to the "public
authority" the "strict duty" of providing properly for the welfare of the
workers, because a failure to do so violates justice; indeed, he did not
hesitate to speak of "distributive justice".</b></blockquote>
John Paul II, the victim and enemy of Soviet Bloc communism, sounds a little Marxist himself in endorsing and reapplying this 100-year-old observations of one of his predecessors, doesn't he? Well, it would be a liberal error to say that if he criticizes capitalism, he must be a commie.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[33]... Many other people, while not completely marginalized, live in situations in
which <b>the struggle for a bare minimum</b> is uppermost. These are situations in
which <b>the rules of the earliest period of capitalism still flourish in
conditions of "ruthlessness" in no way inferior to the darkest moments of the
first phase of industrialization</b>. In other cases the land is still the central
element in the economic process, but <b>those who cultivate it are excluded from
ownership and are reduced to a state of quasi-servitude</b>.
In these cases, it is still possible today, as in the days of <i>Rerum novarum, </i>
to speak of <b>inhuman exploitation</b>. In spite of the great changes which have taken
place in the more advanced societies, the human inadequacies of capitalism and
the resulting domination of things over people are far from disappearing. <b>In
fact, for the poor, to the lack of material goods has been added a lack of
knowledge and training which prevents them from escaping their state of
humiliating subjection</b>.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[35]...In this sense, it is right to speak of a s<b>truggle against an economic system</b>,
if the latter is understood as a method of upholding <b>the absolute predominance
of capital,</b> the possession of the means of production and of the land, i<b>n
contrast to the free and personal nature of human work</b>.
In the struggle against such a system, <b>what is being proposed as an alternative
is not the socialist system</b>, which in fact turns out to be <b>State capitalism</b>, but
rather <b><i>a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation. </i></b>[<i>STATE CAPITALISM. You know, the people on the very top of the global economic food chain are capitalists. State capitalism is simply economic forces controlling the government, or vice-versa, but it amounts to the same. How many harsh capitalistic organizations - corporations - are run internally like communist dictatorships? An awful lot.</i> <i>What if every major industry in the US was privately held, but all held by one corporation and it dominated the government, what would the country be like? Probably a lot like Soviet communism. And consider that the US government is totally dependent upon the capitalistic Federal Reserve - you think the Fed cares if the government is socialist or not? Does it run on principles of free enterprise or on what is ultimately in its own best interest? Socialism is just "state capitalism" - a brilliant observation.</i>]<i> </i>Such a
society [<i>the society of free work, etc., mentioned just before</i>] is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be
appropriately controlled by the forces of society <b>and by the State</b>, so as to
guarantee that <b>the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied</b>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The <b>Church acknowledges the legitimate <i>role of profit </i>as an indication
that a business is functioning well</b>. [<i>So the Church is not Marxist or against free enterprise.</i>] When a firm makes a profit, this means that
productive factors have been properly employed and corresponding human needs
have been duly satisfied. <b>But profitability is not the only indicator of a
firm's condition</b>. It is possible for the financial accounts to be in order, and
yet for the people — who make up the firm's most valuable asset — <b>to be
humiliated and their dignity offended</b>. Besides being <b>morally inadmissible</b>, this
will eventually have negative repercussions on the firm's economic efficiency.
<b>In fact, the purpose of a business firm is not simply to make a profit, but is
to be found in its very existence as a <i>community of persons </i>who in
various ways are endeavouring to satisfy their basic needs, and who form a
particular group at the service of the whole of society. </b>Profit is a regulator
of the life of a business, but it is not the only one; <i>other human and moral
factors </i>must also be considered which, in the long term, are at least
equally important for the life of a business. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We have seen that it is <b>unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called
"Real Socialism" leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization</b>.
It is necessary to break down the barriers and monopolies which leave so many
countries on the margins of development, and to provide all individuals and
nations with the basic conditions which will enable them to share in
development. This goal calls for programmed and responsible efforts on the part
of the entire international community. Stronger nations must offer weaker ones
opportunities for taking their place in international life, and the latter must
learn how to use these opportunities by making the necessary efforts and
sacrifices and by ensuring political and economic stability, the certainty of
better prospects for the future, the improvement of workers' skills, and the
training of competent business leaders who are conscious of their
responsibilities. ...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[39]... All of this can be summed up by repeating once more that <b>economic freedom is
only one element of human freedom</b>. When it becomes autonomous, when man is seen
more as a producer or consumer of goods than as a subject who produces and
consumes in order to live, then <b>economic freedom loses its necessary
relationship to the human person and ends up by alienating and oppressing him</b>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
40. It is <b>the task of the State</b> to provide for the <b>defence and preservation
of common goods</b> such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be
safeguarded simply by market forces. Just as in the time of <b>primitive capitalism
the State had the duty</b> of defending the basic rights of workers, <b>so now</b>, with
<b>the new capitalism, the State and all of society have the duty of <i>defending
those collective goods </i></b>which, among others, constitute the essential
framework for the legitimate pursuit of personal goals on the part of each
individual. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Here we find a<b> new limit on the market</b>: there are <b>collective and qualitative
needs</b> which cannot be satisfied by market mechanisms. There are <b>important human
needs which escape its logic</b>. There are goods which by their very nature <b>cannot
and must not be bought or sold</b>. Certainly <b>the mechanisms of the market offer
secure advantages</b>: they help to utilize resources better; they promote the
exchange of products; above all they give central place to the person's desires
and preferences, which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of
another person. <b>Nevertheless</b>, these mechanisms carry the <b>risk of an "idolatry"
of the market</b>, an idolatry which ignores the existence of goods which by their
nature are not and cannot be mere commodities.</blockquote>
That's enough from Centesimus Annus. John Paul II makes his point pretty clearly. Economic activity must be at the service of authentic human goods, of which economic freedom - that is, the ability to engage in free enterprise - is only one, and not necessarily the most important. The profit motive has advantages - but it also has pitfalls that are dangerous. In being subordinate to other important goals of enterprise - that is to say, authentic human goods that can limit profitability - the desire for profits often sees these authentic human goods as unjust hindrances. <br />
<br />
In <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis_en.html" target="_blank"><i>Sollicitude Rei Socialis</i> of 1987</a>, he said, "The Church's social doctrine is <b>not a
"third way"</b> between <b>liberal capitalism</b> and <b>Marxist collectivism</b>, nor
even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one
another: rather, it constitutes <b>a category of its own</b>. Nor is it an ideology,
but rather <b>the accurate formulation of the results of a careful reflection on
the complex realities of human existence</b>, in society and in the international
order, <b>in the light of faith and of the Church's tradition</b>. Its main aim is to
interpret these realities, determining their conformity with or divergence from
the lines of the Gospel teaching on man and his vocation, a vocation which is
at once earthly and transcendent; its aim is thus to <b>guide Christian behavior</b>."<br />
<br />
So, the Church looks at the Gospel, the authentic anthropology that situates man at the center of God's creation as His image, but a fallen image and prone to sin, and applies these to what she sees around her. Sin can affect economic activities and philosophies and whole systems. Capitalism and socialism both suffer from the effects of sin. The solution is not a third "economic system" but a moral, virtuous approach to human freedom in economic matters. This presupposes moral, virtuous persons as players in free economic activities. If economies and governments are to be just and virtuous, the people must be, too. Atheism - be it Ayn Rand capitalism or Marxist communism - cannot ensure anything but tyranny of those in power and exploitation of those without it. <br />
<br />
You can find similar expressions of JP-II's thought in <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens_en.html" target="_blank">1991's <i>Laborem Exercens</i></a> (sec.7; written for the 90th anniversary of <i>Rerum Novarum</i>); and in his <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1992/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19920114_capitalism-ethics_en.html" target="_blank">address to the participants in the colloquium "Capitalism and Ethics"</a> in 1992. He probably addresses the topic without using the term "capitalism" on many other occasions, but I searched for this particular term at the Vatican website.<br />
<br />
<div class="style1">
Now let us turn to Benedict XVI. The Pope Emeritus has not addressed the term "capitalism" directly in a major doctrinal or pastoral document. He does say briefly the same sort of things as JP-II in a <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20121208_xlvi-world-day-peace_en.html" target="_blank">message for the World Day of Peace on January 1 of this year</a>, in the midst of dealing with financial and banking troubles at the Vatican: "<span style="font-size: small;">In effect, our times, marked by globalization
with its <b>positive and negative aspects</b>, as well as the
continuation of violent conflicts and threats of war,
demand a new, shared commitment in <b>pursuit of the
common good and the development of all men, and
of the whole man</b>. </span>It is alarming to see hotbeds of tension and conflict caused by growing <b>instances of inequality between
rich and poor</b>, by the prevalence of a <b>selfish
and individualistic </b>mindset which also finds expression
<b>in an unregulated financial capitalism</b>."</div>
<div class="style1">
<br /></div>
<div class="style1">
You can also find a very interesting paragraph that mentions a "reckless capitalism" in the context of a "technological Prometheanism" and an "atheistic anthropology" in a<a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2013/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130119_pc-corunum_en.html" target="_blank">n address to the participants in the Pontifical Council Cor Unum</a>.</div>
<div class="style1">
<br /></div>
<div class="style1">
So now has Pope Francis, as <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/11/the-vaticans-journey-from-anti-communism-to-anti-capitalism/281874/" target="_blank"><i>The Atlantic</i> seems to think</a>, identified a "new enemy" of the Church in capitalism? Francis definitely has a more emphatic style, he speaks more from and to the heart as opposed to the head, and I think he could use some help picking the right words. But it is clear that the substance is very much in line with the Church's perennial critique of capitalism.</div>
<br />Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-56145635240598068152013-12-09T17:04:00.003-05:002013-12-11T09:50:09.649-05:00Pope Francis vs His Predecessors on Capitalism, Part 1I am getting sick of all the so-called "conservative" Catholics and their dimwitted supporters in the comboxes lambasting Pope Francis for what he said in his recent Apostolic Exhortation.<br />
<br />
If any of them read this blog and those words, they will undoubtedly think I'm a liberal. Well, all I can say is search the term "Obama" on this blog and see what turns up. Search "abortion." Search "tyranny." Go ahead, read them words, too.<br />
<br />
I say "so-called" and "dimwitted" because they seem to think that John Paul II and Benedict XVI were capitalists. JP-II, OF COURSE, was a capitalist, they would say, because he grew up under and worked against the Communists in Poland! But it is a liberal fallacy that if you oppose one thing you must therefore support its direct opposite. If you oppose Social Security, you want to push Grandpa off a cliff in his wheelchair. If you oppose Obamacare, you want poor people to get sick and die. So here come "conservatives" saying that if JP-II opposed Polish Communism, he must therefore love capitalism.<br />
<br />
Bull. JP-II did grow up under Communism and he did fight hard against it. His role in bringing down the Iron Curtain is underappreciated by the media. But what has he SAID about capitalism? Could it be, as I mentioned the other day, that capitalism, too, has its problems? That communism and capitalism stand as opposite extremes? One overemphasizes community and the other freedom, both of which are Christian values, but each when it is destructive of the other becomes destructive of human goods generally.<br />
<br />
So I thought it might be useful to do what these brilliant pundits have failed to do, and conduct a little research. Here's what I did - and I suggest you do it, too. I went to the Vatican website and searched for the term "capitalism."<br />
<br />
Let's start with <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html" target="_blank">Leo XIII and Rerum Novarum of 1891</a>. EIGHTEEN NINETY ONE. That's the height of the industrial revolution, and 122 years ago. Old Man Potter was a bright young thing at the time. Communism and socialism was on the rise. And this document is contrary to socialism. The word "capital" appears only 5 times, and two of them are in the title and first heading. So, it condemns socialism in no uncertain terms - does it thereby endorse capitalism? Let Leo XIII speak for himself:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
19. The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. <strong>Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital</strong>. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while<strong> perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity</strong>. [<em>He will go on to suggest that the perpetual conflict may be the fault of the bosses.</em>] Now, in <strong>preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvellous and manifold</strong>. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice. <br />
<br />
20. Of these duties, <strong>the following bind the proletarian and the worker</strong>: fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss. The <strong>following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer</strong>: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to <strong>respect in every man his dignity</strong> as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but<strong> to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers - that is truly shameful and inhuman</strong>. Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to <strong>see that the worker has time for his religious duties</strong>; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that <strong>he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings</strong>. Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. <strong>His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just</strong>. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this - that <strong>to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain</strong> [<em>what he means is pay people squat because you can, because they're poor and are desperate for work - they should be paid a living wage regardless of "market conditions"</em>], <strong>and to gather one's profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine.</strong> To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. "Behold, the hire of the laborers... which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth."(6) Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen's earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed out, would they not be sufficient of themselves to keep under all strife and all its causes? <em>[In other words, greedy capitalists have only themselves to blame if they makeselves the adversaries of their workers, who are thereby driven to unionize and become socialists to be treated fairly</em>.] <br />
<br />
21. But the Church, with Jesus Christ as her Master and Guide, aims higher still. She lays down precepts yet more perfect, and tries to bind class to class in friendliness and good feeling. The things of earth cannot be understood or valued aright without taking into consideration the life to come, the life that will know no death. [<em>In other words, there are eternal consequences to being an Old Man Potter.</em>]</blockquote>
Let us move on to <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno_en.html" target="_blank">Pius XI and <em>Quadragessimo Anno</em></a>, published on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Rerum Novarum. Perhaps Pius XI has come to his senses, and endorsed capitalism? After all, it is now 1931, and Russia has been demonstrating the wondrous benefits of atheist socialism on a national scale for 14 years. Speak, O Pius XI:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[53. <em>He cites </em>Rerum Novarum<em> on the interdependency of capital and labor</em>.] Wherefore it is <strong>wholly false to ascribe to property</strong> [i.e., <em>capital</em>] <strong>alone or to labor alone whatever has been obtained through the combined effort of both, and it is wholly unjust for either, denying the efficacy of the other, to arrogate to itself whatever has been produced</strong>. [<em>He thus condemns both extremes: unbridled capitalism and socialism/communism.</em>]<br />
<br />
54. <strong>Property, that is, "capital," has undoubtedly long been able to appropriate too much to itself.</strong> Whatever was produced, whatever returns accrued, capital claimed for itself, <strong>hardly leaving to the worker enough to restore and renew his strength</strong>. For the doctrine was preached that all accumulation of capital falls by an absolutely insuperable economic law to the rich, and that by the same law the workers are given over and bound to perpetual want, to the scantiest of livelihoods. It is true, indeed, that things have not always and everywhere corresponded with this sort of<strong> teaching of the so-called Manchesterian Liberals</strong> [<em>HAH! Unbridled capitalism is LIBERAL!!!</em>]; yet it cannot be denied that economic social institutions have moved steadily in that direction. That <strong>these false ideas</strong>, <strong>these erroneous suppositions</strong>, have been vigorously assailed, and not by those alone who through them were being deprived of their innate right to obtain better conditions, will surprise no one.<br />
<br />
55. <strong>And therefore, to the harassed workers there have come "intellectuals," as they are called, setting up in opposition to a fictitious law the equally fictitious moral principle that all products and profits, save only enough to repair and renew capital, belong by very right to the workers</strong>. [<em>Capitalism and communism--opposite errors, but equally errors, both of them. AND, if workers become marxists, it's because they have not been treated justly by the capitalists</em>.] This error [<em>communism</em>]<em>,</em> much more specious than that of certain of the Socialists who hold that whatever serves to produce goods ought to be transferred to the State, or, as they say "socialized," is consequently all the more dangerous and the more apt to deceive the unwary. It is an alluring poison which many have eagerly drunk whom open Socialism had not been able to deceive. ... </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
58. <strong>To each, therefore, must be given his own share of goods, and
the distribution of created goods</strong>, which, as every discerning person knows, is
laboring today under the gravest evils due to t<strong>he huge disparity between the few
exceedingly rich and the unnumbered propertyless</strong>, must be effectively called
back to and <strong>brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is,
social justice</strong>.</blockquote>
<br />
OK, so it's only 1931, we've only taken a look at one document from each of two popes, and so far, Francis seems to be in perfect alignment with them. Indeed, if Pius XI had said paragraph 58 today instead of in 1931, he'd be called a Marxist and Rush Limbaugh would be ripping what little hair he has out.<br />
<br />
Let us skip over a few popes and decades to <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater_en.html" target="_blank">Blessed John XXIII and <em>Mater et Magistra</em></a> of 1961. Commenting on the economic conditions under which Leo XIII wrote <em>Rerum Novarum</em>, he said the following:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
11. As is well known, the outlook that prevailed on economic matters was for the most part a purely naturalistic one, which <strong>denied any correlation between economics and morality</strong>. <strong>Personal gain was considered the only valid motive for economic activity</strong>. In business the main operative principle was that of free and unrestricted competition. Interest on capital, prices—whether of goods or of services—profits and wages, were to be determined by the purely mechanical application of the laws of the market place. <strong>Every precaution was to be taken to prevent the civil authority from intervening in any way in economic matters</strong>. The status of trade unions varied in different countries. They were either forbidden, tolerated, or recognized as having private legal personality only. <br />
<br />
12. In an economic world of this character, <strong>it was the might of the strongest which not only arrogated to itself the force of law, but also dominated the ordinary business relationships between individuals, and thereby undermined the whole economic structure</strong>. <br />
<br />
13. <strong>Enormous riches accumulated in the hands of a few, while large numbers of workingmen found themselves in conditions of ever-increasing hardship</strong>. Wages were insufficient even to the point of reaching starvation level, and <strong>working conditions were often of such a nature as to be injurious alike to health, morality and religious faith</strong>. Especially inhuman were the working conditions to which women and children were sometimes subjected. There was also the constant spectre of unemployment and the progressive disruption of family life. <br />
<br />
14. The natural consequence of all this was a spirit of indignation and open protest on the part of the workingman, and a widespread tendency to subscribe to extremist theories far worse in their effects than the evils they purported to remedy. ...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
18. They concern first of all the question of work, which must be regarded not
merely as a commodity, but as a specifically human activity. In the majority of
cases a man's work is his sole means of livelihood. <strong>Its remuneration, therefore,
cannot be made to depend on the state of the market. It must be determined by
the laws of justice and equity</strong>. [<em>Workers should be paid justly--not based solely on market forces. It would be exploitive to underpay people because they are desperate for work and income.</em>] Any other procedure would be <strong>a clear violation
of justice</strong>, even supposing the contract of work to have been freely entered into
by both parties.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
19. Secondly, <strong>private ownership of property, including that of productive goods, is a natural right which the State cannot suppress</strong>. But <strong>it naturally entails a social obligation</strong> as well. <strong>It is a right which must be exercised not only for one's own personal benefit but also for the benefit of others</strong>. [<em>Your own property is not simply speaking your own--beause you simply speaking are not entirely autonomous. Your moral obligation is to use your property well--it's not so much that others have a legitmate say in what you do with it, as much as what your duty is. Just because it is left to your prudential judgment, that doesn't mean anything you choose to do is equally moral or equally satisfies that duty.</em>]<br />
<br />
20. <strong>As for the State</strong>, its whole raison d'etre is the realization of the common good in the temporal order. <strong>It cannot, therefore, hold aloof from economic matters. On the contrary, it must do all in its power to promote the production of a sufficient supply of material goods, "the use of which is necessary for the practice of virtue."</strong> </blockquote>
Now let's go to 1964 and the document from Vatical II called Gaudium et Spes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[67]...Since economic activity for the most part implies the associated <strong>work</strong> of human beings, <strong>any way of organizing and directing it which may be detrimental to any working men and women would be wrong and inhuman</strong>. [<em>this covers "any way" that dehumanizes the workers--that would include socialism as well as capitalism.</em>] It happens too often, however, even in our days, that workers <strong>are reduced to the level of being slaves</strong> to their own work. <strong>This is by no means justified by the so-called economic laws.</strong> The entire process of productive work, therefore, must be adapted to the needs of the person and to his way of life, above all to his domestic life, especially in respect to mothers of families, always with due regard for sex and age. The opportunity, moreover, should be granted to workers to unfold their own abilities and personality through the performance of their work. Applying their time and strength to their employment with a due sense of responsibility, they should also all enjoy sufficient rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social and religious life. They should also have the opportunity freely to develop the energies and potentialities which perhaps they cannot bring to much fruition in their professional work. [<em>Workers in justice deserve a living wage--and the opportunity to actually live outside the workplace. Now, it should be clear that capitalism gave us the 35-hour work week and 4 weeks of vacation for those high enough up the ladder--but it was also capitalism that has taken my 35-hour work week and made it 40 hours again, and which makes it 8.5 hours a day to get half a day off every other Friday during the summer months. Pretty much the whole world has an 8-hour day and a 40-hour week, and not the whole world is capitalistic.</em>]<br />
<br />
68. <strong>In economic enterprises it is persons who are joined together, that is, free and independent human beings created to the image of God</strong>. Therefore, with attention to the functions of each—owners or employers, management or labor—and without doing harm to the necessary unity of management,<strong> the active sharing of all in the administration and profits of these enterprises in ways to be properly determined is to be promoted</strong>. Since more often, however, decisions concerning economic and social conditions, on which the future lot of the workers and of their children depends, are made not within the business itself but by institutions on a higher level, <strong>the workers themselves should have a share also in determining these conditions.</strong></blockquote>
A few years later, <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum_en.html" target="_blank">Paul VI published <em>Populorum Progressio</em></a>. Under the heading "Unbridled Liberalism" (yes LIBERALISM!), he says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
26. However, certain concepts have somehow arisen out of these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human society. <strong>These concepts present profit as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations.</strong><br />
<br />
This <strong>unbridled liberalism</strong> [<em>!!!!</em>] paves the way for a <strong>particular type of tyranny</strong>, rightly condemned by Our predecessor Pius XI, for it results in the "<strong>international imperialism of money</strong>."<br />
<br />
Such <strong>improper manipulations of economic forces can never be condemned enough</strong>; let it be said once again that economics is supposed to be in the service of man.<br />
<br />
But if it is true that a <strong>type of capitalism</strong>, as it is commonly called, <strong>has given rise to hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts</strong> that persist to this day, it would be a mistake to attribute these evils to the rise of industrialization itself, for <strong>they really derive from the pernicious economic concepts</strong> that grew up along with it. We must in all fairness acknowledge the vital role played by labor systemization and industrial organization in the task of development. </blockquote>
OK, I'm gonna stop there for now. I'll get to JP-II and B-XVI in a future post, hopefully tomorrow.<br />
<br />
But -- check this out -- unbridled capitalism in the minds of the mid-20th Century people who were living it -- is LIBERALISM. So what idea of liberalism is at work here? Only this: That "I" get to decide what is right and wrong, good and evil, and no one has the right to tell me otherwise. What is conservativism then? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?<br />
<br />
<br />Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-32879210216123631222013-12-05T15:22:00.002-05:002013-12-05T15:22:24.610-05:00Overpopulation, schmoverpopulationCheck out this picture:<br />
<br />
<img alt="there-are-more-people-living-inside-this-circle-than-outside-of-it" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-61374" height="388" src="http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/there-are-more-people-living-inside-this-circle-than-outside-of-it.jpg" width="640" /><br />
<br />
The majority of the people in the world live in a small section of it. Having lived in Wyoming for a few years and now living in the most densly populated state in the US, I have to say that people who live in cities have a distorted view of the population of the planet.<br />
<br />
Source of the pic: <a href="http://twistedsifter.com/2013/08/maps-that-will-help-you-make-sense-of-the-world/">http://twistedsifter.com/2013/08/maps-that-will-help-you-make-sense-of-the-world/</a>Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-697013352683780252013-12-04T18:10:00.000-05:002013-12-04T18:10:04.798-05:00Right-wing uglinessThe stats for this blog are microscopic.<br />
<br />
But anyone who DOES read this blog knows one thing: I am no fan of our current president, his policies, or his party. It's guys like the president that have me resolved never to vote Democratic again.<br />
<br />
And, although I do not wear my Catholicism on my sleeve, I strive to be consistent with the Catholic faith and represent it well. I am a theologian by education after all.<br />
<br />
Now, the Pope has issued an apostolic exhortation. As far as papal documents go, an apostolic exhortation is not especially binding. <a href="http://www.adoremus.org/0902AuthorityChurchDoc.html" target="_blank">According to this website</a>, an apostolic exhortation is "a papal reflection on a particular topic that does not contain dogmatic
definitions or policy directives, addressed to bishops, clergy and all the
faithful of the entire Catholic Church. Apostolic exhortations are not
legislative documents." If so, then the document is exactly what it says it is, an exhortation, a strong, ethusiastic suggestion, following which is left up to the prudential judgment of the people exhorted.<br />
<br />
An encyclical or an apostolic letter, by contrast, is "a formal papal teaching document, not used for dogmatic definitions of doctrine,
but to give counsel to the Church on points of doctrine that require deeper
explanation in the light of particular circumstances or situations in various
parts of the world." Its purpose is to explain and apply doctrine, and so there's less room for prudential judgment and more need for acceptance. <br />
<br />
Rush Limbaugh and this fellow Sorrentino (an ex-Catholic) at Breitbart are having (as Fr. Z might say) spittle-flecked nutties over some of the economic exhortations the Pope has given in this document.<br />
<br />
And the comments at Breitbart are full of such vitriol, bigotry, false readings, and demonizing, that one can see that the liberal accusation of the Tea Party being full of ignorant bigots apparently has some merit. These comments also have me hoping someone has the audacity to come up with a viable third party (the Tea Party is not it, because Breitbart attracts a lot of the Tea Partiers), so I can resolve never to vote Republican again, too.<br />
<br />
All I can say to the radial right wingers is this: Catholics are not gonna fall in line behind you like the mindless sheep you think we are just because we can't stand the Democrats. And if that ticks you off, being bigotted against us isn't going to inspire us to follow you.<br />
<br />
The opposite of one error isn't truth--it's usually another error. If excess is evil, so is deprivation. Truth is in the middle. If marxism is evil as excessive government control of the economy, that doesn't mean that government-sponsored economic anarchy is good. If heavy government regulation and redistributive programs are damaging to an economy and people's spirits by making them dependent on government and lazy, that doesn't mean we should have greedy profiteering that gives us shoddy and dangerous products, horrible working conditions, and low pay. Religious extremism is coupled not with religious moderation, but with atheism. Too much is paird with too little. <br />
<br />
The Catholic faith, insofar as it proposes the truth, often proposes the "just right" in the middle. <br />
<br />
I have a strong dislike of communism and modern liberalism. But today, I officially announce a strong dislike of the opposite end of the spectrum, too.Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-62759956619712727232013-11-26T17:28:00.000-05:002013-11-26T17:28:25.714-05:00Obamacare, Thanksgiving, and IndigestionThis is going to backfire, Mr. President. <br />
<br />
The Obama campaign arm - the man is always campaigning instead of presiding - is apparently <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/26/team-obama-thanksgiving-is-time-to-promote-obamacare-enrollment/" target="_blank">trying to persuade supporters of Obamacare to persuade their family members over Thanksgiving dinner</a>.<br />
<br />
Why will this backfire? Three reasons:<br />
<ul>
<li>There are way too few supporters of Obamacare--if anyone brings up the topic, you can be sure that about 70% of the people around the table will be hostile to it. Just think. Alcohol, football, overeating, normal family discussions and interpersonal fireworks, and relatives one can't stand anyway but is trying to get along with for the sake of the holiday -- and said relative mentions, "Hey, let me tell you why I think the ACA is great!" Might as well try and fix a heating oil leak while smoking.</li>
<li>People have way more important and interesting things to talk about.</li>
<li>Even if Obamacare supporters succeed in persuading their family members, the new converts will not be able to sign up! The call centers will be closed and the website is (still) not working. So they'll have the weekend, or at least until the tryptophan and alcohol wear off, to come to their senses.</li>
</ul>
Hey I think I figured out Team Obama's strategy! Get people while they're drowsy and tipsy! <br />
<br />
Ha, ha. Won't work for me. Talking about Obamacare under such conditions is only likely to make me cranky.<br />
<br />
Also, I'd like to make an observation. Team Obama is apprently telling people to "have the talk" -- in this case, meaning about Obamacare. But "to have the talk" is usually what happens between a parent and child when that child is maturing physically and needs to know the "facts of life." It's "the talk." THE talk.<br />
<br />
After talking about voting for the first time for Obama being like losing one's virginity, after using blatant sex and the availability of free contraception to promote Obamacare, I am totally not surprised that Team Obama is talking about "having the talk." Ugh. Is that all they think about?<br />
<br />
Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-30332174156735082702013-11-22T15:22:00.000-05:002013-11-22T15:22:02.534-05:00Are we sensing a pattern in Mideast violence yet?A few months ago we saw how <a href="http://authenticbioethics.blogspot.com/2013/07/brought-to-you-by-religion-of-peace.html" target="_blank">those brave warriors of Boko Haram</a> faced a <a href="http://247nigerianewsupdate.com/breaking-news-boko-haram-burn-30-students-alive-in-potiskum/" target="_blank">Christian elementary school in Nigeria and burned the students alive.</a> I posited at the time that the unrest throughout the mid-east appears to be targeting Christians to drive out the remnant from what used to be Christian lands. I wondered whose side the <a href="http://authenticbioethics.blogspot.com/2013/09/where-is-susan-sarandon-when-you-need.html" target="_blank">US should be on in Syria</a>. But the plight of Christians in Iraq and elsewhere is underreported in the mainstream media.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/5-children-killed-in-attack-on-damascus-primary-school" target="_blank">And then comes this</a>: Syrian rebels are specifically targeting non-combatant Christian facilities, like schools, the Apostolic Nunciature, and churches. I find it funny how, now that the Russians are commanding the conversation instead of us on Syria, Syria is out of the mainstream news. <br />
<br />But at the same time, so are this attacks on defenseless Chrstians facilities.<br />
<br />
Children. They are targeting and killing children. They are rebelling against Assad and they are killing Christian children. <br />
<br />
No. These actions are not of God. <br />
<br />
And yes. There is a pattern here.<br />
Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-30103471507393038742013-11-18T16:34:00.001-05:002013-11-18T16:34:19.978-05:00The beginning of the duty to dieWesley Smith has often said that the mere legal availability of euthanasia (and with it assisted suicide) to respect the "right" to die with "dignity" will lead to a duty to die.<br />
<br />
Only the selfish will choose life over death. Selfish because in dying slowly rather than quickly they:<br />
<ul>
<li>Consume massive amounts of healthcare resources and medicines, depriving others more needing of it</li>
<li>Impose needless expenses on loved ones as well as the health system</li>
<li>Cause those loved ones needless suffering by having to watch the dying person deteriorate and making them make special trips to hospitals or other facilities</li>
<li>Only extend their own suffering with modest gains in life duration and no gain or even decrements of life quality</li>
</ul>
Therefore, people should just hurry up and die when they find themselves in difficult situations. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/too-much-medicine-wasted-on-the-dying-endoflife-care-report-says/story-fni0xqrb-1226762059637" target="_blank">Here is an article complaining</a> about how, in Australia, the slowly dying consume one-fourth of that country's entire health budget. It is titled, "Too much medicine wasted on the dying, end-of-life care report says." Doctors are "pleading" with patients to ensure that, when the time comes, they don't make the problem worse.<br />
<br />
Now, it is undoubtedly true that at least some of the aged and the infirm receive inappropriate or futile care or even care they would otherwise refuse - but the dramatic cases they discuss are hardly typical. To get our imaginations going, the article cites the 70-something man with kidney failure and respiratory distress who needed emergency heart surgery that ended up taking 9 hours (very expensive), using 20 units of blood (excessive consumption), and displacing three other heart surgeries (presumably of people who were more deserving), only to die after 13 days in the (very expensive) ICU. First of all, I have a question - were his other difficulties a result of the heart condition? If so, then emergency heart surgery would probably seem like the right course. If the fellow had kidney and respiratory failure due to other reasons and an unrelated heart condition, then maybe the intervention for the heart condition would have been a little agressive. But it sounds like they went in and found something unexpected with the heart, so maybe the pre-op workup was faulty. <br />
<br />
Yet, with this as the example, we are given to think that Australia is plagued by frail, dying elderly people getting massive, aggressive interventions that are basically pointless and deprive others of needed health resources.<br />
<br />It also mentions that 90% of people would prefer to die at home than in a hospital. I can buy that. <br />
<br />
Yet, I believe that 100% of them would rather receive potentially life-saving care in the hospital rather than at home. To the moron who justified depriving people of potentially life-saving care because 90% of people don't want to die in a hospital: People don't go to a hospital when they are dying <em>to die</em> - they go when they are dying <em>to stay alive</em>. People who are dying stand a much better chance of living if they go to a hospital.<br />
<br />
And that is precisely the problem, isn't it?<br />
<br />
So if I were pro-euthanasia, I'd keep up this rhetoric for a while. Maybe float a mandatory "living will" law, knowing it will fail. Then keep at it. Sooner or later, we'll have a country that passes not just a "right to die" law, but a "duty to die" law.Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-82675424483441682832013-11-13T17:19:00.000-05:002013-11-13T17:19:19.776-05:00That ridiculous contraception ad for ObamacareI object to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/13/raunchy-obamacare-ad-called-demeaning-to-women" target="_blank">this ad</a> on numerous levels.<br />
<br />
You have heard of this ad, featuring a young lady on oral contraceptives oh so happy she can have sex safely with that.... I-guess-he's-attractive-but-he-looks-slimy-to-me.... "guy" - I hesitate to use the word "man"... because she is sooooo smart and signed up for health insurance that lets her pay $300 a month (or whatever) to someone to pay for her $30 a month contraceptives.<br />
<br />
First, let me object on professional grounds. I am a creative director in healthcare advertising, and this ad is, what we say in the business, "sh*t." Yes, that is the technical term for it.<br />
<ul>
<li>It is creatively bankrupt. It is a lampoon of the iconic and ingenious "Got milk?" campaign, which just turned 20. Gotta hand it to the dairy folks' ad agency for coming up with that one. It was brilliant. (I especially loved <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-SxCCQfdrk" target="_blank">the commercial that revealed the origin of the name, Oreo</a>.) But an agency that spins a 20-year-old milk adverstising campaign for health insurance is just lazy and stupid. It might be funny, if you're, like, OMG! 12.</li>
<li>And using "OMG!" OMG, really? That is supposed to be hip and sexy and smart and all that? C'mon, Yahoo uses it for its silly entertainment gossip "news," even my wife's gym uses it (but spins it to "Our Monthly Guarantee" which is what you gotta do if you're gonna use a cliche). Again, maybe it's ok if the audience is, like, 12 or 13. And OMG! what kind of slimy "guy" likes a girl who talks like that? LOL! WT*! Man.</li>
<li>And "let's get physical" -- what, from an Olivia Newton John song from 1981?? Anyway, this makes three - count them, three -- overplayed, trite, and inept cliches in the first 6 words of the ad. If my copywriter came to me with this, I'd be really ticked.</li>
<li>Regarding the graphics, it looks composed in Photoshop of two separate people. It is an unreal composition. She is too small, her hips are too high in relation to his for their relative heights. Her expression is over the top too happy about having birth control. And, the birth control was probably PhotoShopped into her hand. She is more likely (this is just a guess) in the original photo to have been holding something like, say, an iPhone than birth control.</li>
</ul>
I will tell you who the hip, young advertising pros are who did this ad. They're people who were irresponsible hippy teeanagers in the 1970s, aging 30-something teenagers when "Physical" came out, jealous that someone else younger and smarter than them came up with the Got Milk? campaign in their 40s, and who are now in their 60s. Aging hippies who think they think young and who wished they had "free" birth control back in the day. There is no other way to explain it.<br />
<br />
Now I will object to it on a bioethical level.<br />
<ul>
<li>It proves that Obamacare health insurance isn't about taking care of your health, but about facilitating your indulgent pleasures -- at taxpayer expense. The ad is very explicit about having insurance coverage so she doesn't have to worry about having sex.</li>
<li>Birth control pills are not medicines. They are drugs, but not medicines. They alter the body's normal, healthy functioning and make it function abnormally. They neither treate nor prevent any disease but regard health and pregnancy as diseases. For these reasons, they are unethical on the face of it.</li>
<li>Their mode of action may include abortifacient effects</li>
<li>They are not a legitimate part of health care, but a lifestyle choice; although it is understandable that people who want them would rationalize it as "health care" since they are drugs and require a doctor's prescription. Yet they address no health issue and such people should, like people who want cosmetic surgery, just pay for it themselves</li>
<li>Birth control should not be covered by health insurance, or if it is, the customer should pay for that coverage separately</li>
<li>That the government is focusing on this issue to drive up enrollment is telling</li>
<li>It demeans women and exploits them, it reduces them to making major life decisions based on the effect of those decisions on their sex life - most importantly, it comes off to me as a ludicrous and weak attempt to rally the liberal, self-indulgent Obamacare base</li>
</ul>
Now I will object to it as a theologian.<br />
<ul>
<li>"OMG!" means "Oh my God!" Actually, it probably should be "O my God!" In many cases, it is indeed a prayer and not always taking the name of God in vain. But here, it is sacreligious.</li>
<li>It is insidious that it uses this phrase in this context of sexual promiscuity and immorality</li>
<li>It says "all she has to worry about" in having sex with the "guy" is actually convincing him to have sex with her. There is a little disclaimer about sexually transmitted diseases, so she still has to worry about that, too. But what about if the guy turns out to be a jerk? What if he turns out to be an abuser? What if she falls in love with him and he turns out to just want her for sex, since that was the whole purpose of them hooking up? What about her immortal soul? She has a lot to worry about actually.</li>
</ul>
Now I will object to it as a man.<br />
<ul>
<li>If the male human being in this ad is supposed to be a "hot" guy, ok, well, look, I am not a young woman so I have no idea what they think of as a hot guy. I think he looks slimy.</li>
<li>Men are only as slimy as women let us get away with. Now, I'm not blaming women - men should find it in themselves to be decent men. But, if women are "easy" then men are going to resist commitment and will act like immature brats and dump them when the relationship gets too difficult or requires too much sacrifice. The guy in the add seems like such a guy, because he's hooking up with a chemically sterilized airhead floozy who thinks he's hot</li>
<li>I object to the notion that such a man is a desirable man, or that getting "between the sheets" with such a man is WHY someone should buy for health insurance</li>
</ul>
But, in the last presidential election, Mr Obama ran an ad about the "first time" someone voted, making it sound like it was losing one's virginity - to Obama. So, I am totally not surprised.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-33759583394823177432013-11-07T10:50:00.004-05:002013-11-07T10:50:57.165-05:00The days of natural child conception are overCall me an alarmist, but a <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/11/07/report-genetics-breakthrough-enables-scientists-to-edit-any-part-human-genome/?intcmp=features" target="_blank">new gene splitting, repairing, and reattaching technique</a> has been developed. Now it is possible to take an early embryo, test one of its cells for genetic disorders, cut out the defective genetic sequence, replace it with a normal bit, and reassert it in the cell to let the baby develop without that genetic disease.<br />
<br />
But this is only possible with IVF.<br />
<br />
Already proponents of the technology are saying how unethical it would be to allow a child to live with a disease that could be repaired with this genetic technique.<br />
<br />
And that means a couple conceiving in the natural way are doing something unethical if there is any chance that their child could have a genetic disorder. <br />
<br />
Call me an alarmist, but some day, you will see natural conception occuring only in places in the world where the technology is not available. Maybe not next year. Maybe not in 10 years. But it will happen.<br />
<br />
Of course, with all bioethical issues, the proponents of the practice emphasize the ability to treat diseases and reduce suffering, which are in themselves noble goals.<br />
<br />But the technique can also be used to "fix" perfectly normal but in some way undesired traits. Such as hair color. Sex. Physical stature. Intelligence, insofar as this is genetic. Looks. Possibly talents and athletic abilities. Or traits of animals, such as the ability to glow in the dark.<br />
<br />
Or vice-versa. Making super-intelligent animals, or other human-animal hybrids of some kind. Monsters from Greek mythology will be walking the earth.<br />
<br />
The transhumanists are gonna love this. And they WILL be making genetically modified humans to server their vanity, er, I mean, progress. No, I really mean vanity.<br />
<br />
Call me an alarmist, but normal, natural being-a-human-being is gonna change forever.<br />
<br />
Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-11118015292211399482013-11-04T16:53:00.002-05:002013-11-04T16:53:35.706-05:00But he didn't think it was a person!Here's <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/04/3-arrested-after-man-shot-during-bigfoot-hunting-expedition/?intcmp=latestnews" target="_blank">a story about a guy and his friend out hunting Bigfoot in Oklahoma</a>.<br />
<br />
OK, that's already a comical combination of words, I know.<br />
<br />
So what happened is this. They were out hunting, and were apparently not very close to each other. The one guy hears barking noises, turns around, and fires -- and shoots his buddy in the back. The buddy survived but clearly when a hunter shoots at his prey, his intention is to kill the thing he's shooting at.<br />
<br />
I am not saying he wanted to kill his friend. I am just saying that shooting is an act ordered to killing, and he shot at something that happened to be his friend.<br />
<br />
He has been arrested and charged with reckless conduct with a firearm for the shooting. It seems he should have known that what he was trying to kill was a human being.<br />
<br />
It seems to me, though, that being out in the woods of Oklahoma, that it could have been many, many things bedsides a human. It could have been a deer, or a bear, or a wolf, a bush, or even maybe Bigfoot. Still, I happen to agree, he should have positively ruled out that it was a human being before shooting. In fact, he should have also ruled out that it was any out-of-season animal. But primarily, he needed to be certain it was not a human being. And he wasn't certain -- because it was a human being.<br />
<br />
An argument in support of abortion is that what is growing and living inside a woman's uterus is not a human being. Or, that we can't know for sure that it is.<br />
<br />
We can know for sure what it isn't. It isn't Bigfoot. It definitely isn't a bear or wolf or deer or shrub. We know that for certain.<br />
<br />
And yet, do we not have the same moral obligation as the hunter? To rule out with certainty that it isn't a human being? <br />
<br />
Now, the shooter could claim that HE was certain it wasn't his friend or any other person when he fired. But we know from later on that it was, and he knows now he was mistaken. Therefore, he didn't know well enough and his certitude was based on insufficient evidence. Had he waited for more evidence, he would have gotten the certitude that he needed.<br />
<br />
Yet with abortion, the standard of evidence is all topsy-turvy. The less we know, the more certain we are it's not a human being, the more we can do the procedure without any moral difficulty.<br />
<br />
We know, if we doubt it to be a member of the human species, that it certainly cannot be a member of any other species, either. We know it has some relation to the human species in some way, because of the way it came into existence. We know it is alive, or else an abortion would not be necessary. We know if an abortion is not performed, and everything goes normally, a human baby will be born, or else there would be no need for abortion. <br />
<br />
That is the whole point of abortion - to prevent the last thing said - the eventual birth of a human baby - from happening. Say what you want about abortion, that is what it boils down to: An abortion is "necessary" because without one a human baby will be born. The object of destruction is that future human baby, as much as the undeveloped contents of the woman's uterus.<br />
<br />
And yet, "we don't know when personhood occurs" is a defense of abortion. Ignorance justifies the procedure.<br />
<br />
But ignorance is precisely the crime that the hunter who shot his friend is guilty of.<br />
<br />
That's the world we live in.Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-21283323623462910362013-09-12T13:31:00.000-04:002013-09-12T13:31:00.430-04:00Yahoo CEO's ethical dilemma - and the NSA's ethical confusionSometimes I think that I'm gonna get myself into big trouble with the blog. Luckily, very few people read it. (Did a blogger just say that? Wow. And in a nation that values Freedom of Speech.)<br />
<br />
So, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/12/yahoo-ceo-fears-defying-nsa-could-mean-prison/" target="_blank">the CEO of Yahoo, Marissa Mayer</a>, gave an interview in which she said she was pressured by the NSA and its branches into complying with their demands for data -- by threatening her with prosecution for treason.<br />
<br />
Treason.<br />
<br />
So she can either be a traitor and protect the privacy of personal emails and other stuff and go to jail, or give in and help - help - the government spy on its citizens and go on drawing a huge salary and living the high life.<br />
<br />
She chose the latter.<br />
<br />
Ethically speaking, being a traitor, when one is actually a traitor, is unethical. Betraying your country is not good.<br />
<br />
But we need to make some distinctions.<br />
<br />
The government is not the country. Resisting the government is not in itself treason. We are in trouble if "our nation" and "the government" are one and the same. If they are, there will come a time when petitioning the government for redress of grievances will be seen as treason. Any proposal to change the government will be treason. Everyone will be an enemy of the state just for disagreeing with the government's policies on any matter whatsoever. No, the nation is not the government. The rule of law in this nation is the Constitution, and the Constitution protects both freedom of speech and privacy.<br />
<br />
But for now, breaking the country's laws is not in itself treason. I fail to see how Mayer could be considered a traitor in any respect. Contempt of court (for refusing to abide by an order of the all-powerful Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) maybe. Obstruction of justice, perhaps. Withholding of evidence.<br />
<br />
But TREASON?<br />
<br />
Now look, if Yahoo KNEW who of its users - and I mean real people, not MrDucky2013@rocketmail.com, were using its services for evil against our country, and it went out of its way to protect or assist them, then maybe that would be treason.<br />
<br />
But was the Post Office guilty of treason for delivering anthrax-laced packages? Does the NSA have the right to open people's physical mail? If not, why not? Is it because the USPS is a branch of the government, or because of the sender's and recipient's privacy rights? If the latter, then why is not email accorded the same treatment?<br />
<br />
Notice I asked if the NSA has the right to open people's mail. I did not ask whether or not they do open people's mail. There's a difference between a government's agent opening mail and having the right to do so.<br />
<br />
But if it's treason to say that the government and the nation are not the same thing, then call me a traitor. I am a proud and patriotic American, and AS SUCH, I find tyranny objectionable. It is possible for the government of the United States of America to become a tyranny, and it would be FOR THE SAKE of the nation, out of LOVE for the nation, to resist the government.<br />
<br />
Melissa mayer made her choice. I wonder if I'd have made the same. Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-63649548014135055632013-09-11T10:35:00.005-04:002013-09-11T10:45:13.675-04:00If I could ask President Obama a question today, 9/11/13
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>66</o:Words>
<o:Characters>379</o:Characters>
<o:Company>Biolumina</o:Company>
<o:Lines>3</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>444</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>14.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
<w:UseFELayout/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dear Mr. President,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why on earth have you been so desirous to attack a
government that has done nothing to us to defend rebels who include our
enemies, when you have done nothing but stonewall and hem and haw where it
concerns a murderous attack by those enemies on one of our consulates?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-align: center;">Seriously, Mr. President, why this hyped-up push to
punish Assad in light of your immense foot dragging and stonewalling in
response to Benghazi?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2844297533620110684" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I just want to know.<o:p></o:p></div>
<!--EndFragment--><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2844297533620110684" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><br />Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2844297533620110684.post-90110459137596077512013-09-09T14:14:00.003-04:002013-09-09T14:14:28.267-04:00Whose side is Obama on in Syria?Seriously, I want to know.<br />
<br />
I know that he is vaguely anti-Assad, but that doesn't say much.<br />
<br />
Whose side is he on?<br />
<br />
The side of <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/09/Maaloula-Syria-rebels" target="_blank">THESE rebels, who are also anti-Assad</a>?<br />
<br />
I know whose side I'm on.<br />
<br />
I'm on the side of the Christians.<br />
<br />
Dear Mr Obama: The CHRISTIANS are the real victims in Syria. THE CHRISTIANS. You want to intervene in Syria? Take the part of the Christians and I'll support you. But if you attack Assad, you merely fuel the destruction of the Christians. And honestly, I feel more strongly connected to the dead Christians lying in the street of Maaloula than I do to any non-Christian gas attack victims.<br />
<br />
And so what if the Muslims accuse you have launching "a crusade." First of all, the Muslims don't need excuses like that to hate the US. You attack Assad, and Iranian Muslims will hate you. Don't, and Al-Quaeda Muslims will hate you. And besides, the Crusades were for the most part wars to defend Christians fighting to keep their homelands from Muslim invaders. <br />
<br />
At any rate, it's the Christians who are the biggest victims in all this fighting. O Great Liberal, take the side of this voiceless, helpless group of the disenfranchised victims of imperialistic, militaristic fundamentalists.<br />
<br />
Oh, I forgot. Liberalism isn't really about speaking for the voiceless and helping the helpless and all that, now is it?Authentic Bioethicshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15192253252072145833noreply@blogger.com0