Over at the corner, KLo complains about cloning and a judge that rules that anencephalic babies should be aborted:

Besides the culture of death embraced by New Jersey and California on human cloning (we can clone as long as we kill that new life), the courts insistence on legal infanticide re disallowing partial-birth-abortion bans, and, of course, Roe, Shannen Coffin reminds me that two federal judges here ruled that the government had to pay for abortions of anencephalic babies because they had no chance of survival, i.e., no value to life. (Fortunately, some cooler heads prevailed in the court of appeals where one of those two decisions was reversed (another is pending in the dreaded Ninth Circuit.) How far off are we, really?

At the risk of creeping people out (hey, I have to (re)establish my non-conservative bona fides occasionally here, what with all the complaints about this being a “right-wing” site), I have to say that she sets much too much store by DNA. This all really begs the question of what is human, and what represents human life (an essay that I’ve been meaning to write for years, but never get around to, primarily because it’s a tough problem). The short version is that I don’t believe that having human DNA is either necessary or sufficient to be human, or at least to be a person with rights.

While I can see the conservative objection to aborting “human” clones (it’s at least consistent with aborting in general), I’ve never understood the convervative objection to cloning in general (other than the Leon Kass “Yuck factor“).

I use the word “human” in quotes because I’m on the fence as to when an embryo actually attains that state. I don’t believe that it’s at conception, but I do believe that by the time there’s a brain stem there, you’ve got something that shouldn’t be deliberately killed without a damn good reason. Which brings us to her second complaint, about aborting “babies” that literally have no minds.

These are creatures with human DNA, but can they really be said to be truly human? I think that much of what makes us human resides in our minds, and that absent a brain, there’s no possibility of humanity. For a person in a coma, it can be argued whether or not they are really “there,” even if there’s no measurable brain activity, but if there’s not only no activity, but literally no brain at all (at least none with any higher functions) and no prospects for developing one, what are the prospects for a meaningful life, and what indeed, is the value of such a mass of tissue?

Cigarette-Smoking Man has an interesting post on that subject.

[Via Winds Of Change]

…into Loony Tunes from a commenter at the Aussie Oppressor’s site:

Wile E. Coyote is a mythic fusion of Sisyphus and Tantalus. He is doomed to labor eternally at a task that he can never complete, tormented all the while by the presence of the sustenance he craves (the Road Runner) just outside his reach, but close enough to see, hear, and even smell. He is continually subjected to agonizing pain and massively crippling injuries, but he can never die; instead, he heals instantaneously and is forced to continue his hopeless efforts.

In short, Wile E. Coyote is in Hell — a Hell as cruel and sadistic as anything that Dante envisioned.

also,

You have to feel for Sylvester, too – once he finally gave up on the bird, he settles down, has a kid, then spends his declining years plagued by hallucinations about a giant mouse. Poor bastard.

and

The thing that REALLY steams Me about the RR cartoon is not just that the coyote always loses (though that’s annoying to this canine fan), but that he’s an engineer or at least a technician. You get the message that technology will never solve any problem.

I think the USSR had a cartoon which had a wolf chasing a rabbit, but the rabbit was the inventor and his inventions WORKED.

Why did the damned commies do something right that we didn’t?

I just made up that word, for a site about a book that’s part blog (well, actually, the book (and theme) blog may not be up for another couple of days). But anyone who’s been paying attention to Glenn’s blogads will notice one for Jim Bennett’s new book on the Anglosphere, which he seems to have almost singlehandedly invented. I’m just pointing it out as well.

Hey, I’m just sayin’…

David Brown at Laissez Faire Books says that The Incredibles is an Objectivist-themed movie.

I haven’t seen it yet, but I plan to. I’ve heard many good things about it.

…in reading some moronic commentary on Usenet about Dan’s Unexcellent Adventure, that this little incident provides a pretty fool-proof intelligence test. Anyone who still believes, at this point, that the documents are genuine, or even could conceivably be genuine, has to be an imbecile.

Of course, someone who believes that they may be false, but now considers them irrelevant because the underlying story must still be true (and conveniently, because they’re obviously forged), is simply bereft of logic or ethics.

The comment from “John,” in this post, urging me to read Andrew Sullivan, wasn’t just rude–it was clueless.

Even accepting the (dubious) premise that Andrew is a “conservative,” why would John think that I would care, or that labeling him such would make me take what he says more seriously? I can only presume that it is because “John” deludes himself that I’m a “conservative,” and that therefore I’m intrinsically impressed by what other “conservatives” have to say. I’m not a conservative, but even if I were, I judge peoples words by the words themselves, not by the arbitrary political labels that are (mis?)applied to their authors, whether by themselves or others.

The comment from “John,” in this post, urging me to read Andrew Sullivan, wasn’t just rude–it was clueless.

Even accepting the (dubious) premise that Andrew is a “conservative,” why would John think that I would care, or that labeling him such would make me take what he says more seriously? I can only presume that it is because “John” deludes himself that I’m a “conservative,” and that therefore I’m intrinsically impressed by what other “conservatives” have to say. I’m not a conservative, but even if I were, I judge peoples words by the words themselves, not by the arbitrary political labels that are (mis?)applied to their authors, whether by themselves or others.

The comment from “John,” in this post, urging me to read Andrew Sullivan, wasn’t just rude–it was clueless.

Even accepting the (dubious) premise that Andrew is a “conservative,” why would John think that I would care, or that labeling him such would make me take what he says more seriously? I can only presume that it is because “John” deludes himself that I’m a “conservative,” and that therefore I’m intrinsically impressed by what other “conservatives” have to say. I’m not a conservative, but even if I were, I judge peoples words by the words themselves, not by the arbitrary political labels that are (mis?)applied to their authors, whether by themselves or others.

Via Allen Thomson, here’s a long essay on how a Christian came to become a non-believer.