I think that's true for the leaders. I don't think it's true in this case. I think that he been lead to that side by the leaders in question. C.L. Lewis talked in "Mere Christianity" about how everyone "knows" what right and wrong are. It takes a lot of training and rationalization to quiet that little voice. I think when the vote came up, Obama wasn't ready, and went with his gut. When he had time to think about it, he had to either change his world view or change his vote.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

Also, consider the way some revolutionary groups require a new member to commit an atrocity. And how Mafiosi have to "make their bones." After you do that you have to either believe the cause is right, or admit that you have done a terrible sin. Plus you have to hate your victims--call them "oppressors."

That's presumably why the pro-death crowd supports even patent absurdities like partial-birth abortion. They don't dare admit even the slightest question. (Then they go become vegetarians, because their consciences won't let them hurt harmless creatures.)

Yes, and I've seen the joy some people get, convincing others to "make their bones", in various activities. I think that's the reason we have a problem with the various perversions out there. The eating of others innocence, the helping them down to their level, is a real pleasure for some.....

Meh. I'd agree with you two that much of modern liberalism has a bad smell, like something right out of C.S. Lewis' book, That Hideous Strength.

Still, as much as it pains me to do it (as I will likely be holding my nose and voting for McCain in November), I have to point out something in Obama's defense: Just what the Hell does the federal government think it is doing by sticking its nose in business that is properly the domain of the states? The court in Florida issued a lawful order, and the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the power to intervene. Of course Obama should have second thoughts about being stampeded into dubious Constitutional territory. Now, if only he would have similar qualms about the constitutionality of the other things he's been yakking about for lo these last few months.....

Another thing, too-- note the loaded language in the article: "Terri is the disabled Florida woman whose husband won the legal right to starve her to death......During the Tuesday debate, Obama said he should have stood up against the life-saving legislation..."

John and Robert, at the time the court order was carried out, there was no life to save. The was no personality left, her cerebrum having disintegrated over the years. There was no "there" there. No brain, no person-- only a mindless husk. And what earthy (or celestial) purpose would have been served by preserving that mindless husk?

Absolutely none.

The United States Senate didn't cover itself with glory in the Schiavo matter, and Obama is right to regret his involvement in it.

And yes, he's probably doing so for the wrong reasons, alas.

"Hard cases make bad law," as they say.

I agree that the Feds had no business interfering. It was a matter for the state, and if a state makes mistakes, well, all organizations and individuals are making mistakes all the time. Not a cause to toss the Constitution.

But it's Obama's psychology I was interested in. He could have just said that in hindsight that he thought they had made a mistake through over-eagerness to save a life. That I could respect.

Thanks for your thoughts Mr. Adams. First, I missed the part where Obama was pushing States Rights. Can you point me in the right direction? Second, if there was no Life, what was being maintained? I think you mean there was no Mind. Given how little we understand Mind, I side on compassion. To what purpose? There is a line between Alive and Dead, and I see no good purpose in blurring that line. And using Mind as a term is very tricky; it's very easy to make a divide by zero error. If you can come up with a definition of Mind we agree on, we could discuss this better.....

You're right about hard cases and bad law, John. And many modern liberals lack a moral core, or even have that moral core filled with bad ideas, as Robert noted.

Robert, I agree that a definition of Mind is difficult to pin down. My sympathies lie with Mr. Schiavo because of what happened to my own family. My mother's mother was felled by a catastrophic stroke over the Fourth of July weekend in 1960. My sister, who was eight at the time, watched her grandmother collapse, and ran for help. (I have no memory of this-- I didn't come along until 1962.) Grandmother Dial lingered unconscious for a week, until Mom decided to "pull the plug" on the advice of the doctors who held out no hope of any meaningful recovery.

It's possible, had the technology existed at the time, that my grandmother could have been nursed back to some sort of existence short of actual consciousness, much like Mrs. Schiavo. But what purpose would that serve? And would it be something that my grandmother would have wanted for herself, especially when one considers the financial and emotional burden such an existence would have meant for her family, her friends, and her society?

The power we have over life and death in this world is the mark of Cain. I don't think you like that, Robert, and I don't either. But there it is. The only question we have is what we do with that power. Compassion is great, but it's not the only value to be considered.

Modern liberalism's problem is not the exercise of that power. Its problem is the readiness to exercise that power in the name of convenience. Too much of what is "moral", in your sight and mine, is to some degree inconvenient to liberals.

(I know I'm being contentious here. *wry grimace* I find much to dislike in the pro-abortion crowd, as much of their thinking rests on the idea of what is convenient, as opposed to what is right. I also find much to dislike in the pro-life camp, too, because much of their thinking is black-and-white, with little thought given to other values that ought to be given a lot of weight in their counsels.)

Oh, I forgot I had something else to say....

Another problem, Robert, is how the line between life and death is getting more and more blurred with every passing year.

At the level of viruses, death has been abolished. It used to be if one obliterated the physical existence of a life-form, it was gone forever. Not so anymore, as it's possible to recreate viruses from mere (albeit very detailed) descriptions of their physical construction. That means nasties like polio and smallpox are going to be with us forever, dashing the hopes of health workers and parents everywhere.

With more complex organisms, the line does get finer, as more complex constructions get much harder to describe and re-create, and then set in motion once re-created.

Paradoxically, life and death on the level of human beings gets blurry again, as so much of what makes us human is non-physical, albeit physical in expression. It's like the difference between software and hardware-- a program is, at bottom, just a (non-physical) pattern of ones and zeros, embodied in and operating on a (physical) computer. Likewise, I believe that personality (or "soul", if you prefer) arises from (physical) brain cells arranged in a (non-physical) pattern.

The problem with brain damage is that, while it may be possible to create new brain cells to partly or wholly replace those that were lost, it's not possible to replicate the pattern in which the lost brain cells were arranged. Any repairs necessarily embody a new pattern.

The question, then, becomes: "At what point does the damage become so severe that a repair results in a new person?"

Assuming that such a repair is possible, Robert, I'm with you 100%-- such a repair must be attempted. Failure to make the attempt would be little short of murder.

But we would have to proceed in the knowledge that the salvaged personality may bear little resemblance to the original person. In cases of mild damage, a very large fraction (maybe 90%?) of the original pattern would survive, and any repair could be expected to conform to the existing pattern. (Research has shown how the various parts of the brain interact, with each part exerting some influence on how neighboring parts form, change form, and operate.) In Terry Schiavo's case, a "salvage operation" would not have retrieved the young woman who collapsed of an apparent heart attack. She died long ago, when the brain-cell-pattern labelled "Terry Schiavo" vanished in the wake of her injury. There would have not been enough of her original brain left to recreate any pattern closely resembling the original. The "salvaged" person might have some of the same traits, but what would ultimately result would depend a lot on the training and socialization of what would be mostly a blank slate, an overgrown near-infant.

Thanks again, Mr. Adams. The problem is we keep hearing about people in comas waking up, when the doctors were sure it would never happen. There's still a lot we don't understand about comas and the Mind. In Terry's case, the parents were willing to feed her and give her drink. Why did we stop them from having hope at gunpoint? As to the burden, I thought that was the point of civilization, to take up these burdens. Lord knows, if it was about utility, I should have been put down when I was run over by the tractor.
But it's not the end I as most worried about, it's the beginning. With your concept of Mind as the goalpost of worth, what is to stop vile men from modifying children in the womb to stop them from having more mind then a parrot? What will you do when they start selling Nu-slaves(tm)? It's ok, right? they're not Human......

I don't think "utility" enters into it, Robert. It's because we are civilized that you were not "put down" after you had your accident.

As for Terry Schiavo and her parents: Yes, they were willing to care for her, and were able to shoulder some of the burden of caring for her. But health-care resources are scarce like any other resource, and one has to ask a question: Were the resources that were lavished on what was left of Terry Schiavo wasted, when they could have used to better effect on someone else? (That's the reasoning behind the idea of triage.) And Terry Schiavo's parents were not the only ones with a stake in the case-- her husband had a say, too, and (absent any proof to the contrary) I think we'd have to yield to his assertion that his wife would not have wanted to persist in some half-life like she did for fifteen years.

And I don't think your nightmare about "Nu-slaves" will come to pass any time soon-- we'd have to sink pretty low for that to happen, and they wouldn't make very good slaves anyway. Either they'd be too stupid to even be slaves; or, if bright enough to be slaves, too nearly fully-human to ultimately remain so.

On the subject of the nearly-human, you might want to read A Different Flesh, by Harry Turtledove. It's out of print, but you can probably find it easily enough used. It's set in an alternate reality in which Columbus finds a New World populated not by "Indians" but by proto-humans. It's not Turtledove's best work, but it's still pretty good.

nYbLhd dohhxcrvuxfg, [url=http://tehqrugtzsez.com/]tehqrugtzsez[/url], [link=http://iojkpnmvfogl.com/]iojkpnmvfogl[/link], http://qmzewwonxccu.com/