Old World Swine

"Killing, Shmilling", Say Eggheads

Ew-w-w-w-w-w...

From BioEdge - Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists;

In view of well-publicised organ shortages, transplant surgeons are eager to increase the number of available organs.

 

Yeah, I'll bet.

[T]he dead donor rule is routinely violated in the contemporary practice of vital organ donation. Consistency with traditional medical ethics would entail that this kind of vital organ donation must cease immediately. This outcome would, however, be extremely harmful and unreasonable from an ethical point of view [because patients who could be saved will die]. Luckily, it is easily obviated by abandoning the norm against killing.

Well, I'll be durned! Mankind has just been all turned around on this issue all along! Killing is really nothing to get all worked up over. Some guys with degrees have said so. People smarter than you.

Ain't the New Math just terrific?

(a tip of the crumpled fedora to Eric Waltemate via Facebook)

Pick of the Litter

 

This piece from AFP news service in France (via Yahoo) announces the birth of the first ever "savior sibling" born in that country.

The baby's already born (lucky for him!) sibling has a rare blood disorder, which the parents and doctors hope to treat with stem cells from this new designer infant.

Here is how that happens; The couple goes through the in-vitro process we all know and tolerate, and from the multiple embryos (that's "little people") one is selected that is a good genetic match for whatever it is the parents and doctors wish to do with it. This embryo is allowed to live. The rest of the embryos are destroyed, without so much as a complementary toaster or even a Lowe's gift card... but, thanks for playing!

CODA: This is probably not likely to be a big problem psychologically or emotionally for any of the children, experts guess wildly, with a shrug. And, anyway, that kind of thing is not really within the scope of their research. Anyone wishing to look into that aspect of the process will therefore have to find their own funding.

"O, brave new world, that hath such people in it!" - Shakespeare

Political Science

Unobstructed Science in action...

President Obama promised again yesterday to take politics out of science, which is at once A) a lie, B) a horrible idea and C)a naked power grab.

It is a lie because President Obama does not by any stretch wish to take all politics out of science, he simply wishes to remove from the practice of science the influence of those political ideas with which he disagrees. He certainly intends for his own politics to remain thoroughly enmeshed in the practice of science.

It is a horrible idea because politics is how we decide things together in this country. The founding fathers carefully crafted the outlines of a political process (complete with what checks and balances they could reasonably conceive) that would enable us all to exercise some influence over and maintain some restrictions on the activities of our government. The underlying assumption of the Constitution is that governance is far too important to be left to the government, and that the common sense of the common people is a necessary corrective - really the only corrective - to the absurdities of a governing elite.

It constitutes a naked power grab because it seeks to insulate publicly funded science from public control, and to concentrate that control in the hands of a few, who are by no means disinterested, and who must answer to no one. It is an end-run around the political process, which President Obama and those in his camp find messy, inconvenient and frustrating. Politics means controversy and argument and compromise, and the President has no patience for such things. Besides, certain groups (those pesky religious folk, mainly) have more influence over that process than he would like. They make things difficult and ask hard questions.

So, with a wave of his hand, he simply brushes away the conroversy... "Obama has spoken, the matter is settled". There will be human cloning (but only embryos, so it's okay), there will be humans created only for the purpose of harvesting their body parts (that's what embryonic stem cell research is), it will be funded by your taxes and there is nothing you can do about it.

The president has pledged that under his administration, science will not be obstructed or obscured by "politics or ideology", which means that science will not be obstructed by ethics.

But scientific ethics are too important to be left to scientists.

*I found this quote from Chersterton quite by accident the day after I wrote the post above, while browsing through the latest issue of Gilbert Magazine;

The Government and experts shall be allowed, without trial or discussion, to dispose of unborn generations with the levity of a pagan god. We are putting the official on the throne. - G.K. Chesterton, 1912

The Three Tethers

(FOX News - with a hat tip to Mark Shea) -  A (that's one, single) Montana judge has ruled that physician assisted suicide is legal in that state. The decision is sure to be appealed, however.

I once heard a preacher say that in man's fallen state there are three things that keep individuals from doing evil; 1)Physical limitations, 2) Societal pressure, and 3) The individual conscience.

1.) Physical limitations would be a lack of power or skill... like being physically unable to get in and out of Fort Knox with no one noticing, or being angry at someone but unable to fight or kill them because they're bigger and you're unarmed... that kind of thing. You would like to act on your evil impulse, if you could, but you are prevented by physical circumstances.The technological revolution, though, has made more evil possible to more people (I know this sounds one-sided... yes, technology has also made it possible to do more good than ever, but right now we're talking about the constraints on doing evil).

2.) Societal pressures would include the fear of ostracism and of course the fear of direct punishment. If you indulge your evil impulses without any discretion at all, you are likely to end up with few friends and are also likely to spend a fair amount of your life behind bars, running from the law, or trying to avoid the revenge of your peers. And just try keeping a decent job.

3.) The individual conscience needs little explanation. Everyone has it, and though individual mileage may vary, natural law informs us through our conscience that certain things are just wrong and always will be. You can't steal without first overcoming that pang of conscience, and you can't do violence against the innocent without doing violence to your own psyche. It leads to self-loathing. A conscience informed by the Christian understanding of agape is (or ought to be) that much more attuned to the needs of others.

At one time, the laws of society (at least in the U.S.) and the law of the individual conscience (informed within a rubric of Divine love) we're much more aligned than they are now. Our laws are increasingly reflective of a mindset of secular materialism and moral relativism. Things that a generation or two ago would have resulted in public shaming, ostracism and punishment are now tolerated or even celebrated and specially protected.

So, in the last hundred years, or so, two of these three tethers on evil have been (in my view) significantly weakened. We are physically able to do more mischief than ever (cluster bombs, internet porn, MSNBC...) and we live in a society that is much more ethically lax (no-fault divorce, abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, destroying unborn human beings for their body parts... MSNBC...).

That leaves the individual conscience, which has also been weakened by the moral laxness of our age. We are living in a time, though, when the individual conscience may become the only significant remaining bulwark against evil in the world. We may indeed be entering a time that will require great acts of moral courage just to resist being compelled to participate in or accommodate evil.

That means, I think, that individual evangelization - person to person, conscience to conscience - will become even more important. Technology won't be turned back, and society won't be changed by lawyers and judicial appointments or even presidents... it must begin in the individial human heart, which must turn to God, learn to love him above all things, and then for his sake learn to love all others... and that is impossible without the Holy Spirit.

I wouldn't look for victory or even help from courts or politicians for a long time.

The Best Defense (fund)

In case you hadn't noticed, I recently added a link in the left-hand column to the BioEthics Defense Fund. Do go have a look at their website, and support them if you can. These kinds of issues are quickly becoming the leading edge of the moral battle in modern times, eclipsing things like sexual behavior, war, drugs, violence and political corruption.

On a related note, The Deeps of Time - in addition to some other cool items - carries this post and a link to a Catholic News Agency article on science and ethics;

In an article published by the L’Osservatore Romano, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, said science that is for the purpose of experimenting with human life without any ethics “puts itself out of bounds” and lends itself to be suspect of being at the service of those in power rather than of the good of all of humanity.

The Blue Boar contributes a piece on the current Chinese practice of harvesting - and selling - the organs of executed political prisoners and other Enemies of the State.

These practices, like abortion, are outrages committed against human dignity, as if our humanistic modern world has ironically turned against human beings. Like so many humanitarians, they labor for the good of some abstract thing called "humanity", while counting individual humans to be of no inherent value.

So, one human is worthless, but a lot of us together are important, for some reason.

C.S. Lewis examines this in his prophetic little book, Men Without Chests;

Let us suppose that an Innovator in values regards dulce et decorum and greater love hath no man as mere irrational sentiments which are to be stripped off in order that we may get down to the 'realistic' or 'basic' ground of this value. Where will he find such a ground?

First of all, he might say that the real value lay in the utility of such sacrifice to the community. 'Good', he might say, 'means what is useful to the community.' But of course the death of the community is not useful to the community—only the death of some of its members. What is really meant is that the death of some men is useful to other men. That is very true. But on what ground are some men being asked to die for the benefit of others?

Without a transcendent morality, it all comes down to power, sooner or later.

Why a One Issue Voter?

In a combox below, reader (and fellow artist and Arkansawyer) Paul writes,

By no means will I condone abortion, at ANY point in a pregnancy. But I'm curious to know from e. and Tim why it's THE issue that you would vote on? Are others not equally important in the eyes of Christ?

There are a few reasons why abortion is such a crucial issue for me. I truly am not a single issue voter (at least, I would like not to be). I am concerned with many other things. But abortion trumps all, right now.

I'll explain first by tweaking your question slightly;

By no means do I condone the extermination of the Jews at Auschwitz and Birkenau... But I'm curious to know... why it's THE issue that you would vote on? Are others not equally important in the eyes of Christ?

The answer is, no, there are no other issues at the moment equally important in the eyes of Christ. Hitler was great for the German economy. He built a fantastic system of highways, from what I hear.

Secondly, my becoming anti-abortion (I wasn't always) was not at all related specifically to religion, but came about when I was shown and came to understand that abortion is - under any moral code worthy of the name - clearly logically untenable. It cannot be supported by any reasonable argument, but is founded completely on the politics of the "will to power".

When a person gets abortion wrong (especially if they have seen the facts and had the opportunity to think it through logically) this reveals an absolutely fatal inability - or unwillingness - to reason. Any intelligent adult who can look at a photo of an unborn child - anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the biology of gestation and fetal development - can't morally accept abortion except through a titanic effort of self deception and false rationalization.

This leads me to conclude that such a person has either seared their conscience for the sake of political convenience (not wanting to have certain people mad at them) or that they are simply incapable of thinking (in my case, it had been some of each).

Neither of these possibilities leads me to trust in such a person's judgment - especially in any position of leadership. It's a non-starter, an automatic disqualification.

All the driest science and logic attests to the humanity of the fetus. All attempts to justify nullifying that humanity are arbitrary and capricious - full stop.

The only religion one needs in order to oppose abortion is the belief that killing innocent human beings is wrong... but of course, there are more and more who hold that killing inconvenient human beings can be justified, innocent or not. There are even growing numbers who hold that killing human beings in order to take something valuable that they have (like their stem cells or organs) can be supported readily enough.

"O brave new world, that hath such people in it!"

Has Brownback Swayed McCain on ESCR?

This story at Catholic Online indicates... maybe.

C'mon, Senator McCain. In the words of Dr. Seuss, "A person's a person, no matter how small". I really want to vote for you and your running mate Sarah Palin, but your endorsement of experimentation on embryos has been the major impediment to that. Let more barbaric technocracies play God with human DNA if they want. The U.S. needs to show real leadership on the issue by laying the foundation for an ethical bulwark against this insanity.

In this case, leadership means going against the grain - being the first lemming to turn around and head away from the cliff.

UPDATE: American Papist has more.

ESCR is Very, Very Important

ESCR is a significant move in the wrong direction. It is an opening door. It is anti-life (in every sense) and irreconcileable with the concept of human dignity. While everyone is focused on abortion, ESCR is a giant step toward making human rights even more a matter of political influence (or scientific interest), rather than a matter of Objective Truth (all Men are created equal). For decades we've been working to set up a roadblock, a checkpoint, to try and slow down or stop the Mac Truck of abortion (which is a very good thing), but we may end up slowing the truck down a little while letting the Freight Train of ESCR blow right by us.

If ESCR ends up gaining wider political and social support, moderately restricting abortion will be cold comfort in the end. In the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, they offer a kopek in change for a ruble. ESCR is handing our embryos over for "scientific research" to modern day Dr. Frankensteins who believe nothing should stand in the way of their scientific curiosity, most especially a quaint little historical relic like "ethics". It has started with embryos, but there is no reason to suppose that it will end anywhere at all. Why would it? Why in the world would scientists suddenly begin to draw arbitrary moral lines when there is still funding to be had?

McCain/Palin need to have their feet held to the fire on this glaring inconsistency (for now the GOP seems to get it, at least in print). We need to jam our foot against this opening door while we have a chance.

That said, Obama is the most enthusiastic supporter of ESCR in the race. At least he's consistently anti-life.

Withdraw, or Engage?

Not much blogging today. We lost power (courtesy of the leftovers of Hurricane Ike) Saturday night, and are still dark Monday morning. We've been burning candles (Yay! Working for a candle manufacture has its perks, we're loaded with candles of every description. Our house smells like a bakery located in a forest of fir trees. But I digress...).

So, I missed the chance to respond to this from J.R. Stoodley in the combox;

"Thinking about announcing your candidacy, Tim?"

My fellow Americans, on this occasion, blogging from the Great State of Arkansas, let me say unequivocally and with deep conviction that I have not ever - nor do I now - have any plans to seek public office of any kind. If nominated I will not run. If elected, I will not serve...

For almost any reason I can think of, I would be a terrible politician. No, I'm thinking of getting more deeply involved with this particular race by throwing in with McCain/Palin, volunteering at the local GOP headquarters and hoping that in some very small way, I might influence the organization (and perhaps the next administration) regarding Embryonic Stem Cell Research and other areas of interest (smaller government, stalling government involvement on global warming, staying out of Iran, etc...).

If I throw in with McCain, it seems the sensible and responsible thing to add my voice to those within his camp who oppose ESCR. If I help McCain carry my county, it may be that at some point I'll be able to influence a few people a little farther up the food chain. I do think it's possible he could be influenced and may yet change his position on ESCR. If I learn differently between now and November, though, I can happily vote for Alan Keyes. I have to say, Sarah Palin hasn't shown any sign of offering the slightest resistance to Mccain if he wants to go into Iran. She's also changed her language on Global Warming, which bugs me. She used to talk about human-caused GW with a measure of wise skepticism, but seems to be falling in line with Team McCain on that.

THIS JUST IN - McCain Launches Pro-Stem Cell Ad

This isn't good.

Hooray! I'm a Bioethicist!

Reader Athos sent along this link to an article by Michael Cook, which is worth a read.

The article concerns one Julian Savulescu, protégé of Peter Singer;

While Singer is famed for supporting animal liberation, infanticide, euthanasia, and so on, Savulescu has broken new ground. A youthful 44, he has been at Oxford since 2002 as the head of something called the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics.

"Practical Ethics". That's short for "Practically No Ethics".

As the article points out that there is no agreed upon set of qualifications for being a bioethicist, I am declaring myself one this morning. I'll gin out some business cards after I've had my coffee.

Seriously, if this kind of thing doesn't let up, it's time for the torches and pitchforks. Cheerleaders for ideas like "performance enhancing drugs in sport, genetic screening, early abortion, late-term abortion, sex-selective abortion, embryonic stem cell research, hybrid embryos, saviour siblings, therapeutic cloning, reproductive cloning, genetic engineering of children for higher IQs, eugenics, and organ markets" simply should be run out of town and pelted with rotten vegetables along the way.

It's enough, now.