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)

No Pride Month for Bestiality?

Okay, according to the Women of Grace website, Senior Class President Obama has declared June to be "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month".

Can someone explain why Zoophiles were so glaringly left out? What goes on between a man and his hamster should be their business, right? RIGHT? Who are you to judge? STOP PUSHING YOUR MORALITY ON MEEEEEEE!!!!

Children will be after that.

I wonder what Malta is like this time of year?

Vermont Couple Keeping Child's Species a Secret

Paul and Melinda Hamling of Grumpton, Vermont have upset family, friends an neighbors by refusing to specify or confirm their child's species. Now about two (in human years) the youngster reportedly sometimes chooses to be taken in a stroller, and other times chooses a leash for daily walks around the neighborhood. He/she has been seen running after robins and other area birds, as well.

"We want Anton (not his real name... or gender) to have choices", said his/her Mom, "He/she loves to sleep with Petey, our terrier, sometimes, but s/he also spends a lot of time with out cats, Buster and Keaton. We also have a ferret s/he has responded to very positively, and s/he has been curious lately about the squirrels in our yard. We just want (Anton) to be free to make that choice for him/herself, because it will probably have a lot of impact on his/her life... how s/he sees him/herself, who or what s/he will marry or mate with, what kind of food or Purina chow s/he may prefer."

Family members and friends have been mostly outwardly tolerant of the practice, while making faces and swirling motions at the sides of their heads in private or while the parents' backs are turned.

Others have been more vocal in their questioning of the parents' judgment. "Are you, just... batsh*t crazy?"... that's what I said", an anonymous uncle shared. "I mean, seriously... what if the kid chose to be a rock? Would they leave him in the garden, or use him/her to prop up the leg of a picnic table? I did bring him/her a bag of dog treats for his/her birthday, like they asked, but only because I didn't want to raise a stink".

Neighbors' reactions have been mixed, "I'm not sure about letting my Gracie play with him/her. I mean, what if s/he's something like a pit-bull or a badger? That could be dangerous. No, I'm afraid we won't take that kind of risk unless they at least give us the phylum."

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

I'm Okay, You're Irrelevant

Another must-read, this time from What's Wrong With The World;  Lydia McGrew posts a link to this article, a 1994 interview with former Rogerian psychologist Dr. William Coulson, who talks about how humanistic psychotherapy destroys communities, including families and religious orders.

We've all heard discussed now and then (we Catholics, anyway) just what delicate and mysterious combination of social forces led to the collapse of Catholic religious orders in the last half of the 20th century. This article makes it plain that their collapse was no mystery, and that much of it was directly caused by the introduction of humanist psychology into these Catholic institutions. Ironically, this new approach was embraced initially as a way to strengthen these communities. They trusted themselves to "experts", and let the fox in to guard the chickens.

From Lydia McGrew's introduction;

It's the story of how the "non-directive therapy" of psychologist Carl Rogers brought down religious orders with frightening speed in California in the 1960's. The story is told by a former associate of Rogers, now-repentant Dr. William Coulson.

...First, Coulson's story is an indictment of the pseudo-science of psychotherapy. As he tells the story, Rogers started out doing therapy with people who had solid ethical upbringings and hence fairly well-informed consciences. Rogers found that by prompting them with questions like, "What do you think?" he could get them to give themselves therapy, in a sense, to find good answers to their problems for themselves. He then proceeded to generalize this to the ridiculous idea that all of us can thus find the right answers (in heaven-knows-what sense of "right") if only we are encouraged to look within ourselves, be authentic, get in touch with our true feelings, and so forth. Authenticity then, predictably, became identified with rejecting whatever you had been taught previously, and especially with all forms of religious tradition, and when Rogers chose to do further work on the West coast, he found all manner of horrors and destruction flowing from his method. No kidding. Man is fallen after all.

Seriously, do take the time to read the whole thing.

The Death of Common Sense

NO WAY this could ever be abused;

Electronic 'Pleasure Chips' May Enhance Sex Lives

To anyone with any common sense, this kind of thing just screams Best Not to Go There.

The transition, begun during the hilariously mis-named "Enlightenment", from (it was supposed) intellectually stunted religious superstition to clear-headed reason and scientific inquiry was thought by many to signal the end of savagery and the beginning of civilization (as if modern man invented civilization).

It has instead been attended by the death of common sense, which was predictable enough, for as the scripture says, "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom". Awe of God is the foundation on which all common sense is built. In fact, the common sense of the common man has always held: A) the existence of a Creator, B) the essential praiseworthiness of the Creator, and C) man's obligation to render proper worship to the Creator and obey the moral law.

Instead we find that the modern simplistic appeal to mere material causation for every aspect of life has led to the death of common sense, because science can never be the basis for any moral judgment. It may certainly help to inform our moral judgments, but it can neither establish nor endorse one moral choice over another. Science is morally blind.

As Dostoevsky famously never said, "Without God, anything is permissible".

Or, to give a popular Chesterton paraphrase*; "When men stop believing in God they don’t believe in nothing; they'll believe in anything.”

So, why not implant a pleasure chip in your brain to boost your sex drive? Because, you know, the problem is we Americans just don't think enough about sex. This will be something else that shallow rich guys can pressure their wives and girlfriends into getting to go along with the fake boobs... "But honey, don't you care about our relationship? It causes me stress that your sex drive is not as disordered as mine".

You want to boost your sex drive? Get some exercise, go off the Pill and ditch the anti-depressants (both known to numb the natural libido).

*G.K. Chesterton never actually gave this exact quote, as such, but it has been cobbled together from disparate Chestertonian sources and certainly is the kind of thing he would say... therefore giving attribution to Chesterton is proper enough.