I’m fearless, in this regard, having spent my entire life to date in that state:

Mother Theresa’s confessions (if such a word could be used lightly given the context) similarly affirm Theology, that the greatest fear, or perhaps the greatest threat posed to believers, isn’t death, or evil, or something else, but the absence of God.

And never having had any ambitions toward beatification, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. There has obviously been a lot of intellectual energy, and even occasional rigor involved in analyzing these issues over the centuries, but to me, it always reads like a dispatch from an alien planet. I worry more about cancer, cardiac problems, and terrorists getting nukes myself. But then, theology was never my strong suit.

Phil Bowermaster has some thoughts on animal rights, as does Megan McArdle.

I would find it tough to give up eating mammals. I am bothered by eating pork, because pigs seem to be quite intelligent (though not enough to forgo it), but I have trouble working up much sympathy for cattle. I’m also a little off put by baby mammals (so I rarely eat lamb, and almost never veal), though that actually seems a little irrational to me. Just my own version of Leon Kass’ “yuck factor” I guess. And I have no problem with eggs, though I wouldn’t want to eat deep-fried chicks (even disregarding the inefficiencies of finding much meat amidst the bones and viscera). Anyway, as noted, forgoing all animal protein, as vegans do, is a very tough lifestyle to do healthily.

All these things, as Phil notes, are driven more by culture and innate tastes than any rational or ethical analysis. Many cultures have no problem with eating land-based arthropods (fried locusts, anyone), but I can’t stomach them unless they come from the water. And it’s not just the size.

I hope that we aren’t far from technology that allows a filet mignon to be grown in a vat, which will resolve a lot of these issues once and for all.

Dr. Helen has some thoughts. I’m with Mark Twain and Heinlein on this issue, myself. Every action we take is, ultimately, for ourselves, if for no other reason that it makes us feel good.

Michael Gerson somehow imagines that Second Life proves that libertarianism doesn’t work. Ramesh Ponnuru (no libertarian) points out the flaw in his “argument” (such as it is).

An interesting dust up between Leon Kass and Steven Pinker on the nature of the mind, and morality.

I think that, as is often the case in debates like this, that they are talking past each other, which is almost inevitable, given that they start with such profoundly different premises.

[Update early afternoon]

John Derbyshire (from whom I got the link) has further thoughts. I’m a little surprised that he’s surprised that Kass can have a nasty side, though.

[Update an hour or so later]

He also has some cogitations about consciousness.

An interesting dust up between Leon Kass and Steven Pinker on the nature of the mind, and morality.

I think that, as is often the case in debates like this, that they are talking past each other, which is almost inevitable, given that they start with such profoundly different premises.

[Update early afternoon]

John Derbyshire (from whom I got the link) has further thoughts. I’m a little surprised that he’s surprised that Kass can have a nasty side, though.

[Update an hour or so later]

He also has some cogitations about consciousness.

An interesting dust up between Leon Kass and Steven Pinker on the nature of the mind, and morality.

I think that, as is often the case in debates like this, that they are talking past each other, which is almost inevitable, given that they start with such profoundly different premises.

[Update early afternoon]

John Derbyshire (from whom I got the link) has further thoughts. I’m a little surprised that he’s surprised that Kass can have a nasty side, though.

[Update an hour or so later]

He also has some cogitations about consciousness.

But “liberals” always want to try. Imagine the mental and logical gymnastics one must go through in order to believe that it’s all right to abort a “normal” baby, but not one genetically deformed:

Mr. Imparato said he was disturbed to learn recently that in several states with legislative efforts to restrict abortion rights, groups like Planned Parenthood often lobby for an exemption for women who learn their child would have a disability.

But he said that the person who alerted him was a Planned Parenthood lobbyist who was herself troubled by the tactic because it seemed to run counter to the progressive political agenda that supports both choice and tolerance of human difference.

But “liberals” always want to try. Imagine the mental and logical gymnastics one must go through in order to believe that it’s all right to abort a “normal” baby, but not one genetically deformed:

Mr. Imparato said he was disturbed to learn recently that in several states with legislative efforts to restrict abortion rights, groups like Planned Parenthood often lobby for an exemption for women who learn their child would have a disability.

But he said that the person who alerted him was a Planned Parenthood lobbyist who was herself troubled by the tactic because it seemed to run counter to the progressive political agenda that supports both choice and tolerance of human difference.

But “liberals” always want to try. Imagine the mental and logical gymnastics one must go through in order to believe that it’s all right to abort a “normal” baby, but not one genetically deformed:

Mr. Imparato said he was disturbed to learn recently that in several states with legislative efforts to restrict abortion rights, groups like Planned Parenthood often lobby for an exemption for women who learn their child would have a disability.

But he said that the person who alerted him was a Planned Parenthood lobbyist who was herself troubled by the tactic because it seemed to run counter to the progressive political agenda that supports both choice and tolerance of human difference.