I've long argued that there are two completely distinct worldviews here: one (the traditional zygotes-are-persons view) that supports the end (longer, healthier lives) but not the means (embryo research) and another (the Kass view) that opposes the end and, only incidentally, the means (embryo research). If there's one thing Leon Kass isn't, it's pro-life.
Virginia Postrel hits the nail on the head with her assessment of Leon Kass, an unfortunately influential fellow who is strongly opposed to healthy life extension in any form.
It's the thing itself, the lengthened lifespan, that chafes him so. The cellular indignity angle is just a sideshow, a preliminary skirmish. To him, extended life is a tragic societal mistake, no matter how it's achieved. That's why I think he's a moral monster.
...leading opponents to embryonic stem cells are not simply worried about the embryo issue--they fundamentally question whether we should be intervening to prolong and improve human lifespans and ameliorate human suffering.
Kathryn Jean Lopez doesn't like my Kass reference above. But the reference, which could have been clearer, was to Kass's generally negative view of "the relief of man's estate" by science, and in particular to his argument (discussed here) that another 20 years of healthy life would probably be a waste.
As for embryos, stem cells, cloning and the uses and abuses thereof, they are "not the most profound of subjects," he told me over a pot of tea in the kitchen of his Washington apartment. "The embryo question is really about the means. The real question has to do with the ends to which we put this."...
"There are very few people who've been around a long time who see anything with fresh eyes," says Dr. Kass. "We need to put our weight with the young."
A Student at the University of Chicago, Sept. 12, 2005
Perhaps these people have their reasons to hate him, but my personal conclusion from this summer was that I really wanted to take a class from him.
Indeed, a woman's earning power can become her own worst enemy when the children are born. Many professional women who would like to stay home with their new babies nonetheless work full-time.
Tragically, some cling to their economic independence because they worry that their husbands will leave them for another woman before the children are grown...
Once female modesty became a first casualty of the sexual revolution, even women eager for marriage lost their greatest power to hold and to discipline their prospective mates. For it is a woman's refusal of sexual importunings, coupled with hints or promises of later gratification, that is generally a necessary condition of transforming a man's lust into love.
Optional Bible Studies link. For extra credit! Teaser quote follows...
...institution of stable domestic arrangements for rearing the young depends on some form of man's rule over woman.
Proof positive that thinking should be left to professionals.
posted by Justin on 01.10.06 at 12:26 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3198
Comments
"even women eager for marriage lost their greatest power to hold and to discipline their prospective mates. For it is a woman's refusal of sexual importunings, coupled with hints or promises of later gratification, that is generally a necessary condition of transforming a man's lust into love."
Any woman who needs to withhold the milk so the guy will buy the cow doesn't deserve to be married. Actually, she also doesn't deserve to vote or wear shoes. And should have a minder.
As for me and my people, we can handle the sexual revolution, get married and lead quite happy lives. (Although we will happilly snicker over "discipline" in that quote for a while. I never said I was mature. Just self-sufficient.)
P.
Portia · January 11, 2006 02:19 PM
some [women] cling to their economic independence because they worry that their husbands will leave them for another woman before the children are grown
A professor of the University of Chicago who has never heard of alimony or child support? I'd be embarrassed for the school too.
xj, if you think that's bad, try reading the whole thing. It truly is "mind-bending ghastliness". And never forget, "a woman's earning power can become her own worst enemy".
Portia, you're making ME laugh too. I can't imagine how I missed the implications of "holding and disciplining", but now that you've pointed them out I'm having a hard time shaking free of an unfortunate mental image.
And as for barefoot women? Yes! Clearly they would be a net social good. Homer tells us so.
"even women eager for marriage lost their greatest power to hold and to discipline their prospective mates. For it is a woman's refusal of sexual importunings, coupled with hints or promises of later gratification, that is generally a necessary condition of transforming a man's lust into love."
Any woman who needs to withhold the milk so the guy will buy the cow doesn't deserve to be married. Actually, she also doesn't deserve to vote or wear shoes. And should have a minder.
As for me and my people, we can handle the sexual revolution, get married and lead quite happy lives. (Although we will happilly snicker over "discipline" in that quote for a while. I never said I was mature. Just self-sufficient.)
P.