|
January 10, 2006
Not An Ad Hominem Attack.
Virginia Postrel March 8, 2005 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. Reason March 10, 2005 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. Justin Case March 9, 2005 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. Nick Gillespie June 6, 2005 ...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. Glenn Reynolds June 6, 2005 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. Leon Kass Jan. 7, 2006 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."... 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. Just one of some Dissenting Opinions November 14, 2005 As a recently matriculated PhD. student at the U of Chicago, I am officially embarassed for my school. But why should this be? Perhaps we'll find answers in the Classical Values archives. Here's a quote from Dr. Kass on November 13, 2005. 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. And here's another on October 22, 2005. 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
Comments
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. Worst. Presidential. Appointment. Ever. xj · January 12, 2006 07:40 AM 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. J. Case · January 12, 2006 11:28 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"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.