Stones Cry Out

Boonton has asked, and I’ve been temporizing:

A good question that ended up getting EO to ban a commentator was based on a hypothetical fire. You rush into a IV Fertilization clinic that is on fire. There happens to be a live baby in a crib crying. There is also a heavy 60 pound mini-freezer whose label says it contains 150 frozen fertilized eggs. There are only moments to spare and you can only carry one out. Which is it?

It is my understanding that typically 10 blastocysts are implanted with an average of one about one “taking” and producing a child per attempt. So, in for purposes of discussion consider that, if implanted, here we are talking about an average of 15 potential children “frozen” and one in the crib. What would I do in this case is the question. Now, we really have no way of knowing in the heat of the moment what we would actually do, but for purposes of discussion I’ll try to imagine what I’d do. There are a number of possibilities here I think that are all reasonable.

1. If I knew nothing about the situation, and was a complete stranger.
2. What if one of the freezer (or infant) had blastocysts all “assigned” to someone you knew. That is the freezer was IVF product for just one couple. What if you knew either mother? Would that affect your decision?
3. If I knew of two or three women to whom those blastocysts belonged and didn’t know the mother of the infant …
4. Another variation of the question, what if it was not a living baby vs the frozen blastocysts but a heavy valise carrying cash. How much money would it have to be before you’d leave the freezer?
5. How about if it was the infant? How much money to leave the infant?
6. Numbers, I think matter. Blastocysts themselves are very small, I think. Just a cluster of a few dozen to a hundred cells. What if it was a 30 kg freezer with a million blastocysts. Would that matter? How about a 100 million? What if those blastocysts were 150 T-Rex bastocysts recovered by genetic archeology. What if there were a thousand and they were the last survivors of a racial subtype, such as a ethnicity facing extinction?

My answers:

1. (unknown) I’d save the infant. The infant more than likely has a mother and a family. Most blastocysts are abandoned. For IVF techniques produce and excess of blastocysts, and understandably parents stop trying to have more children … when they achieve pregnancy. Why the rest are not then immediately destroyed is of course because such destruction is felt by most people to be morally problematic.
2. (known mom) This would certainly matter. I’d save the freezer or the infant if I knew the parents … unless the parents where the parents of the “freezer” blastocysts and I knew that they had no intention of having a child.
3. (prospective parents known) I’d likely save the blastocysts. That would likely be at least two or three babies to the one …. on average. If it was “even”, I’d likely save the infant.
4. (money) I’d save the freezer.
5. (money for infant) I’d save the infant.
6. (numbers) At some number it becomes highly likely that more lives will be spared if the freezer is saved. A million makes it almost certain that the freezer has more value. T-Rex … -> the infant. I have no idea where I’d fall on the racial question. But if I thought that prospective mothers would be found, I’d favor the freezer.

Finally, I’ll note, I am one of the pro-life persons who think that IVF is morally problematic in and of itself … for what it’s worth.

To mix a metaphor.

The Media Research Center has the details on how Katie Couric treated Joe Biden vs. Sarah Palin. 

Y’know, there’s nothing wrong with having a bias.  We all do.  But be up-front and honest about it, eh?

• A measured evaluation of Mr Obama’s infanticide “smear”.
• History and narrative.
• Are Democrats to blame? My take is that they are both to blame. The Dems for pushing for relaxed lending standards, the GOP for holding the line on limited regulation (which in itself isn’t bad) but when you couple reduced regulation with no reduction in liability … that way lies disaster, recall the SNL crises, which was exactly a release of regulation but not liabillity.
• Heh. And one way to stand athwart history shouting “stop”.
• Mr Kerr looks at Mr Osteen.
• How long can you watch this video? Here’s an antidote. Some more remarks here.
• A raffle.

About 25 years ago I owned a dog that, as time marched on, began experiencing the effects of aging. The dog, a Sheltie, got to the point where her walking was labored, resulting in muscle spasms. Consequently, we began discussing taking her in to the vet to be put down. My grandmother, bless her heart, objected to that course of action. Her reason?

We quietly chuckled at the absurdity of her concerns.

Now (HT: Doug) enter a British medical ethics “expert” who has recommended that people be

How is it that we’ve gone from the age-old notion of putting animals down, to that of putting humans down? Are we beginning to see a clear juxtaposition between the Judeo-Christian view of The Imago Dei, and that of naturalism, which sees us as nothing more than clothed apes?

I’ve got a few loose threads running around. I’m going to pick a smaller one tonight. Last night I quoted Wendell Barry on the public and private nature of sex and the consequent dialog in our society which has lost its sense of community. And I think we should take seriously the notion of moving our discourse out of the conservative/liberal divide and center it around community. With that in mind (and another loose thread to nip) in this comment trail, commenter Boonton suggests that there is not good “pro-life” answer to:

A good question that ended up getting EO to ban a commentator was based on a hypothetical fire. You rush into a IV Fertilization clinic that is on fire. There happens to be a live baby in a crib crying. There is also a heavy 60 pound mini-freezer whose label says it contains 150 frozen fertilized eggs. There are only moments to spare and you can only carry one out. Which is it?

The initial response, which you can follow (but I’ll summarize) is that there is at least one problematic feature to this, that the IVF is problematic for many who hold pro-life positions, e.g., the Catholics. I suggested that one might make a problematic moral question in the context of an extermination/concentration camp, but that the different arguments might ignore a “Gordian solution” (in the case of saving IVF blastocysts its that IVF is problematic in the case of the camp … it is the mere existence of the camp). Mr Boonton leaped at an mistaken notion of what such a “camp moral quandary might be”, so before going further I’ll offer that as an aside before going on to the real point. In the context of a camp, a analogous moral question might be, you are in position to save either one child imprisoned in the camp or 5 (pick a number greater than 1) children of the guards … you know that tomorrow everyone in the camp will die. Whom do you save, the one child or the five? The one has had a recent life filled with horror, the others benefited from luxury not of their making but as a result of their parents choices (crimes) and (abuse of their) positions of power.

So the matter at hand with the asides finally set, err, aside, is that we want to discuss abortion in not in a “cold-blooded mechanical” fashion, but instead in the language of “respect, responsibility, sexual discipline, fidelity, or the practice of love.” Now we live in a culture which has been dominated by a particular (Christian-Greco-Roman) culture. What this means is that our narratives describing what comprises healthy community all involve a healthy helping of ethics which include a disavowal of abortion, and for now what that means for those of us in our culture is that abortion is a symptom of a breakdown of community. So, I’ll turn the tables back on the pro-choice crowd, how does abortion fit into your notion of healthy community? And if it doesn’t why is the question of pro-choice/pro-life on the table? For the question at hand isn’t one structuring law right, its recovering community.

Mr. Instapundit noted yesterday:

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: “Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working.” I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.

UPDATE: The Anchoress hears similar things.

Water must be warm in the tank.

When sexual abuse in the Catholic church was uncovered, the national mainstream media was all over the story, as it should have been.  But when it’s a public school system that is involved in the same thing — including sending known offenders back in to work with kids, and trying to minimized the issue — their silence betrays their bias.  Then, there was outrage and daily reports on the evening news.  Now, local reporting but not much else.

Dave Pierre of NewsBusters chronicles the issue here (back in May) and here (last week).  The national media ignores a government program but wallops Christians over the same issue.  Yeah, no bias there, right?

As my wife and I talked about the bailout failure, she wondered if there would be the catastrophe that pundits were predicting would come about.  I mean, some were giving the impression that the next day we’d be in The Great Depression 2.0.  The Dow Jones drop yesterday was a large absolute number, but it was just a little over 6%; less than a third of the percentage drop in ’86.  And over the past week the market has taken wide swings as emotion rather than reason has put it on the roller coaster.

But as the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy reminds  us; don’t panic.

There are two reasons not to panic.  The first is that God is still in control, He knows what’s coming, and if we’re trusting in Him we don’t have to worry.  “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)  Those “all things” may not all be pleasant and cheerful, but they’ll all work for good.  Likewise, this doesn’t mean we don’t have plans if disaster strikes — I have a savings account, a retirement account, and I backup my computer; this verse doesn’t tell us not to be careful — but whatever events come our way we need to trust Him to get us through it.  Panic, as human and as understandable as it may be, is a lack of trust.  A good article, “Fearing the Future”, is here at Crown Financial Ministries’ web site.  Don’t panic.

The second is that panic makes us do foolish things that calm consideration may warn against.  We react instead of respond to the events of the day.  Take the fuel shortage hitting my neck of the woods.  If every car in metro Atlanta were to top off their tank on the same day, we’d have a fuel shortage even if all the stations had gas to begin with.  But, true to (human) form, when we heard that hurricane Ike slowed the flow of gas into the southeast, and the governor said not to panic, Atlanta did anyway.  Worried about gas lines and higher prices, Atlantans created and implemented a self-fulfilling prophesy.  If folks with 7/8th of a tank all hadn’t decided to top off during the same few days, we may have been able to ease through it.  There would have been some disruption, no doubt, but not to the point where some folks trail gas tankers to their delivery locations. 

The stock market lost 6% yesterday?  Then today’s the day to jump in.  Other people panicked and bailed out of the market, creating bargains.  Some folks have dumped stock of companies that aren’t going to be affected, or affected little, by this situation, so their stocks are now artificially low.  This podcast episode from Crown Financial Ministries deals with this specific issue.  (And I recommend picking up the feed in your podcatcher of choice.  Good advice all the time.)  Don’t panic.

But could we actually wind up in The Great Depression 2.0?  Only God knows, and that’s not a cliche.  Whether we experience some pain now or if we kick the can down the road, it’s still all known to God.  Trust Him, and don’t panic. 

Do you think the market will rebound to day, as investors grab deals … or will it continue to plunge? Why is the bailout bill noted as “the GOP killed it” with 95 Dems voting against it?

• Iraq casualty tolls.
• The bailout and Mr Obama, he only thinks its an issue when giving speeches. Does that make it a lie? or just hypocrisy?
• I have to re-read this piece, it was too long in my morning RSS link/rush to figure out where it was going. But it looks interesting.
• Art viewed through the lens of the Gospel.
• Summarizing the credit crisis. Another view. One more. And a suggestion that Wall Street isn’t as centrally important as it once was.
• A winter not-so-wonderland.
• Mr Obama’s tax plan and unintended consequences, predicted.
• What i want for my birthday.
• A pro-choice vegetarian … once upon a time.
• I too am a sexist cyclist, and I think almost all guys who race are as well. Getting “girled” irks.
• Duh. It’s not that one doesn’t believe that’s what the Obama campaign claims and says. It’s that one doesn’t believe it will work (or in fairy dust).

In the book (and eponymous essay) Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community: Eight Essays Wendell Barry writes an final impassioned essay pushing the importance of community. Mr Barry notes the inability of public discourse to deal with sex and other issues is due to the failure of community. Writing:

Once it [a society or culture] has shrugged off the interests and claims of the community, the public language of sexuality comes directly under the influence of private lust, ambition, and greed and becomes inadequate to deal with the real issues and problems of sexuality. The public dialogue degenerates into a stupefying and useless contest between so-called liberation and so-called morality. The real issues and problems, as they are experienced and suffered in people’s lives, cannot be talked about. The public language can deal, however awkwardly and perhaps uselessly, with pornography, sexual harassment, rape, and so on. But it cannot talk about respect, responsibility, sexual discipline, fidelity, or the practice of love. “Sexual education” carried on in this public language, is and can only be, a dispirited description of the working of a sort of anatomical machinery — and this is a sexuality that is neither erotic nor social nor sacramental but rather a cold-blooded, abstract procedure which is finally not even imaginable.

[…]

The public discussion of sexual issues has thus degenerated into a poor attempt to equivocate between private lusts and public emergencies. Nowhere in public life (that is, in the public life that counts: the discussions of political and corporate leaders) is there an attempt to respond to community needs in the language of community interest.

Bertrand de Jouvenel as summarized in Mahoney’s little book Bertrand De Jouvenel: Conservative Liberal & Illusions Of Modernity (Library of Modern Thinkers) also notes that the discourse between liberal and conservative is an intramural struggle between two parties which share a largely common set of (erroneous) assumptions. Modern political discussion is straight-jacketed by the Hobbesian/Lockean assumptions which are largely fraught with error, yet remain dominant. For example, Locke proposes notions of natural rights to protect from the obvious dictatorship of Hobbes social contracts ability to subsume any and all parts of the private into the public realm. Rousseau, critiqued this by noting that the notion of rights does not in any way hinder the government from taking. Observe the last weeks dialogs on the banking crises. Nowhere in the discussions do we find asked if it is the “right” of government to decide whether the proposed takings (the $700 billion) was right. So often there is talk about the barriers between politics and religion. Barriers between the partisan political and the financial seem, if anything, more important. But no fundamentals needed discussion here. The assumption is, that whatever is needed, can be extracted by fiat by those in the beltway.

I have on a number of occasions argued for pushing our political members to assign powers and responsibilities to the local level. There are many good reasons for this. Above, Mr Berry notes eloquently yet another of them. Community in this country is dying. In part this is due to the very low price of energy in our petroleum driven economy. High mobility and ease of travel makes anonymity and disconnect from our neighbor easy and in part natural. This may be a temporary adjustment as it may be likely that in a half-century the petroleum engine driving the modern 20th and 21st century economy may in fact wind down. Mr Berry points as well to other structural elements in our society that keep our alienation from community intact. Mr Jouvenel also isolates and notes the peculiar yearnings that citizen of Babylon (as he terms our multifarious multicultural society) possess. For the citizen of Babylon is a repellent and attractive nature to the smaller more unified societies of old. The unity that a small society could have is at the same time exciting in that it is a thing one can strongly believe in, can join, and participate fully … but at the same time that giving up of self to one particular thing is repellent.

My suggestion to this is strengthening of the small community by giving it responsibility and authority. Babylon might perhaps co-exist with a multiplicity of small cohesive micro-societies joining together in a larger whole.

We have a new poll question today.  Do you approve of having some sort of bailout bill from Congress to deal with the subprime mortage crisis.  If so, what form would you like the bailout to take; buy the debt, insure the debt but don’t buy it, or some other option?  If you have a different idea, let us know in the comment section.  Or would you prefer to just let the chips fall where they may?

The proposed & amended bailout bill failed today, so the question is, what (if anything) now?  This is an open thread (aka “You Cry Out”) on what you think the next step should be.

Polls are opened until Friday night at midnight.

With a tip of the hat to Bruce McQuain at Q&O, the country of Ecuador is about to take a step into environmental extremism that is (so far) unparalleled.

The South American republic of Ecuador will next week consider what many countries in the world would say is unthinkable. People will be asked to vote on Sunday on a new constitution that would give Ecuador’s tropical forests, islands, rivers and air similar legal rights to those normally granted to humans. If they vote yes – and polls show that 56% are for and only 23% are against – then an already approved bill of rights for nature will be introduced, and new laws will change the legal status of nature from being simply property to being a right-bearing entity.

This is a complete rewrite of the definition of the concept of a “right”. 

And where did they get this idea?  American leftists.

Thomas Linzey, a US lawyer who has helped to develop the new legal framework for nature, says: “The dominant form of environmental protection in industrialised countries is based on the regulatory system. Governments permit and legalise the discharge of certain amounts of toxics into the environment. As a form of environmental protection, it’s not working.

“In the same way, compensation is measured in terms of that injury to a person or people. Under the new system, it will be measured according to damage to the ecosystem. The new system is, in essence, an attempt to codify sustainable development. The new laws would grant people the right to sue on behalf of an ecosystem, even if not actually injured themselves.”

Linzey is a member of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.  This is their liberalism and environmental policies running out of control, and is a peek into what they really want in our country.

Linzey admits that Ecuador may be taking a step into the legal unknown. “No one knows what will happen [if the referendum goes in favour of new rights for nature] because there are no examples of how this works in the real world,” he says. “A lot of people will be watching what happens.”

Yeah, good luck with that guinea pig thing.  Just waiting for the Plant’s Suffrage movement.

In the first Presidential debate, Barack Obama used the line more than once that this credit crisis we’re in stems from policies that “shredded” regulations, and that assumed that regulation is “always bad”.  But that characterization is simply not true, and in the cases of Freddie and Fannie, which are government sponsored enterprises (GSE), government oversight is especially required.

First of all, GSEs are a non-free-market concept, contrary to Rep. Barney Frank’s assertion that this credit crunch is a failure of the free market.  It is a government program to target certain sectors with cheap loans.  Overall, it has been fairly successful, but it is not a free market issue.  This is government stepping in to deal with a situation it wants to see changed.

The second issue is that when Democrats pushed Freddie and Fannie to create what became known as the subprime mortgage market.  That was the subject of the previous video I posted on this subject.  It became the late-20th-century version of “a chicken in every pot” promise.  Everyone gets a home!  Well, not really.  Everyone gets a mortgage, including some who couldn’t afford it.  But Freddie and Fannie took this mandate and went wild.  It was essentially a big-government solution being administered by a big-government program; again, not a failure of the free market. 

During this time, Republicans realized that more regulation of these types of loans and the securities backed by them was required, but Democrats did not believe there was a problem.  Those were their words; not a problem.

Roll the tape, and listen to their words.

So Obama’s sweeping contention that Republican consider regulation “always bad” is demonstrably false.  Less regulation is a hallmark of conservatism, true, but where it’s required, especially in a government program, it should be done.  But Democrats, when faced with tightening the purse strings on a constituency that they claim for themselves, will see no evil.  Being for the little guy does not mean setting them up for failure.  It’s partisan politics, pure and simple.

And by the way, where’s the MSM on this?  Quiet as a mouse.  FactCheck.org’s checking of debate facts is silent on this issue.  The objectivity on this issue is pointing out some glaring blind spots.

Update: Roger Kimball gives the roots of this crisis a closer look, with suitable linkage.  Short and sweet, but informative.