I have been reading the reminiscences of the Captain and it put me in mind of my own recollections from that day. September 11 2001 was a very important day for Kath and I, since it was our first opportunity to vote. We had become citizens in April of that year, and one of the first things we did was register to vote. September the 11th was a Tuesday and there were school board elections that day. True, as votes go, not terribly momentous, but still, we definitely wanted to cast that first ballot, if only to declare ourselves metaphorically free of "no taxation without representation!"
We had planned to vote in the evening, after work, so that we could go home and have a celebratory dinner afterwards. Of course, the events of the day changed the celebratory dinner. I recall hearing about the attacks on Bob and Tom as I drove in to work, and having to teach class that afternoon to about 235 very unhappy freshmen. I played Santana's Samba Pa Te (from Abraxas) at the start of class, telling them that I found it to be a piece of music that soothed my soul, and that my soul needed soothing that afternoon. Teaching was pretty tricky for the rest of that semester, in many ways.
However, that day we did go and vote, in the evening, as we had planned. It had a great deal more significance than it would otherwise have had, because it felt like it was one small thing we could do to hit back at the terrorists who had attacked our country. I guess in one way I am lucky - I will never forget the day I cast my first vote.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Monday, August 15, 2005
Thoughts on Ayelet Waldman
I recognize that I am extremely slow to comment on this, but it has been churning around in my mind for a couple of weeks now, and I feel the need to comment.
If you have forgotten (and I wouldn't blame you) Ayelet Waldman is the woman who had the temerity to state on Oprah (and elsewhere) that she loved her husband more than her children. She went even further than this, and said that while she could imagine continuing on if one or more of her children were to die, she could not imagine being able to continue if her husband should die.
As can be imagined, this created a certain amount of outrage, with one woman in the audience of the Oprah show going so far as to indicate she would, in effect, like to rip Ms. Waldman limb from limb - perhaps what one might term an excessive response (at least I consider it excessive, but apparently this limb-rippin gwoman is far from alone in her viewpoint).
It seems to me that those who are attacking Ms. Waldman for not loving her children more than her husband have an essentially backward view of marriage. I will confess my own notion of marriage is skewed by three fairly major things. First, my parents marriage, which is 55 years old and going strong, has been remarkably hospitable to others (our home was a haven for all my cousings, and assorted others through the years), yet clearly founded on a strong love for each other (based, at least in part, on Sunday afternoon "rests" - don't ask!). My sister has recently celebrated her 29th anniversary, and I have been fortunate enough to celebrate my 25th wedding anniversary this year too, and both of us do our best to model, with appropriate changes (or for those who like to use fancy latin phrases, mutatis mutandi - a great phrase to put in committee meeting minutes!) the marriage that we saw in our parents.
Trying to gather that experience into a few simple sentences is not easy, but I think the way I see and I hope I live my marriage is that my wife and I, by way of our love for each other, create a safe and supportive space within which our children can grow and mature. That model of marriage requires that our love for each other be stronger, and indeed of an entirely different nature, than that for our children. To imagine otherwise seems to me to present a rather impoverished view of matrimony, but others may beg to differ - your comments, as always, are welcome.
If you have forgotten (and I wouldn't blame you) Ayelet Waldman is the woman who had the temerity to state on Oprah (and elsewhere) that she loved her husband more than her children. She went even further than this, and said that while she could imagine continuing on if one or more of her children were to die, she could not imagine being able to continue if her husband should die.
As can be imagined, this created a certain amount of outrage, with one woman in the audience of the Oprah show going so far as to indicate she would, in effect, like to rip Ms. Waldman limb from limb - perhaps what one might term an excessive response (at least I consider it excessive, but apparently this limb-rippin gwoman is far from alone in her viewpoint).
It seems to me that those who are attacking Ms. Waldman for not loving her children more than her husband have an essentially backward view of marriage. I will confess my own notion of marriage is skewed by three fairly major things. First, my parents marriage, which is 55 years old and going strong, has been remarkably hospitable to others (our home was a haven for all my cousings, and assorted others through the years), yet clearly founded on a strong love for each other (based, at least in part, on Sunday afternoon "rests" - don't ask!). My sister has recently celebrated her 29th anniversary, and I have been fortunate enough to celebrate my 25th wedding anniversary this year too, and both of us do our best to model, with appropriate changes (or for those who like to use fancy latin phrases, mutatis mutandi - a great phrase to put in committee meeting minutes!) the marriage that we saw in our parents.
Trying to gather that experience into a few simple sentences is not easy, but I think the way I see and I hope I live my marriage is that my wife and I, by way of our love for each other, create a safe and supportive space within which our children can grow and mature. That model of marriage requires that our love for each other be stronger, and indeed of an entirely different nature, than that for our children. To imagine otherwise seems to me to present a rather impoverished view of matrimony, but others may beg to differ - your comments, as always, are welcome.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Stem Cell Thoughts
Stems cells have been in the news a bit lately in part because of Bill Frist's comments regarding embryonic stem cells (which I learned about via Instapundit - my thanks to Glenn Reynolds for his always excellent work!). This is clearly an emotive issue and one on which the MSM are seeking to hammer President Bush. That often makes me suspect that we may not be getting the whole story about stem cells. So, I asked myself, what do we actually know?
Well, here is what I know (which may of course be wrong - if there is an error in this please let me know - thanks).
First, it is my understanding that there are two sorts of stem cells - adult and embryonic. Adult stem cells can be harvested from various places on a person's body - the mucous lining of the nose, or various sub-cutaneous regions, for example. Embryonic stem cells are harvested from embryos that are obtained from in-vitro fertility treatments (although not, as far as I am aware, from clinical abortions). A third source of stem cells may be from umbilical cord blood, but I am not sure whether these are indeed classified as stem cells, or are something else. If they are stem cells, I think they fall into a third category, since they can only be harvested once and at one particular time (unlike adult stem cells) yet they are not the same as embryonic stem cells - I'd appreciate input from anyone with clarification on this point.
Second, as far as I am aware, the only clinical treatments that currently make use of stem cells, use adult stem cells harvested from the individual being treated. One example is the use of adult stem cells to cure or mitigate spinal cord injuries as discussed in this testimony before the Senate in July 2004. As far as I know, emryonic stem cells are not currently being used in any treatments of humans at this time.
So, what do these facts do to help us address the moral issues involved in embryonic stem cell research? The first thing I would note in this regard is that when such issues are discussed in the MSM, the issue seems, to me, to be deliberately confused by a failure to differentiate embryonic stem cell research from adult stem cell research. I would also note that the use of adult stem cells is very similar to the use of skin grafts for burn victims. That suggests to me a moral continuum that might help to address some of the issues herein.
At one end of the continuum we would have adult stem cell usage, which is morally equivalent to the use of skin grafts, and thus to me seems to be morally unobjectionable. At the other end, let's put the growth of human embryos to a point at which they are sufficiently developed that organs could be harvested from them for use in transplants. As far as I know, nobody is advocating such a practice (publically at any rate) at this time, and such a practice would be considered morally abhorrent by most people today.
If this moral continuum is a valid one (a point of view that is certainly debatable) then the issue is where along this line does the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research lie? My own sense on this is that such usage is not equivalent to the use of skin grafts. In fact, it seems to me that the use of embryonic stem cells is in fact much closer to the use of embrtos to grow organs than to skin grafts.
I acknowledge that others will have a different view on this point. However, I would suggest that while this remains an issue that requires moral debate (which it does) it would be immoral to press forward with the usage of embryonic stem cells beyond what is already being done. Thoughts?
Well, here is what I know (which may of course be wrong - if there is an error in this please let me know - thanks).
First, it is my understanding that there are two sorts of stem cells - adult and embryonic. Adult stem cells can be harvested from various places on a person's body - the mucous lining of the nose, or various sub-cutaneous regions, for example. Embryonic stem cells are harvested from embryos that are obtained from in-vitro fertility treatments (although not, as far as I am aware, from clinical abortions). A third source of stem cells may be from umbilical cord blood, but I am not sure whether these are indeed classified as stem cells, or are something else. If they are stem cells, I think they fall into a third category, since they can only be harvested once and at one particular time (unlike adult stem cells) yet they are not the same as embryonic stem cells - I'd appreciate input from anyone with clarification on this point.
Second, as far as I am aware, the only clinical treatments that currently make use of stem cells, use adult stem cells harvested from the individual being treated. One example is the use of adult stem cells to cure or mitigate spinal cord injuries as discussed in this testimony before the Senate in July 2004. As far as I know, emryonic stem cells are not currently being used in any treatments of humans at this time.
So, what do these facts do to help us address the moral issues involved in embryonic stem cell research? The first thing I would note in this regard is that when such issues are discussed in the MSM, the issue seems, to me, to be deliberately confused by a failure to differentiate embryonic stem cell research from adult stem cell research. I would also note that the use of adult stem cells is very similar to the use of skin grafts for burn victims. That suggests to me a moral continuum that might help to address some of the issues herein.
At one end of the continuum we would have adult stem cell usage, which is morally equivalent to the use of skin grafts, and thus to me seems to be morally unobjectionable. At the other end, let's put the growth of human embryos to a point at which they are sufficiently developed that organs could be harvested from them for use in transplants. As far as I know, nobody is advocating such a practice (publically at any rate) at this time, and such a practice would be considered morally abhorrent by most people today.
If this moral continuum is a valid one (a point of view that is certainly debatable) then the issue is where along this line does the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research lie? My own sense on this is that such usage is not equivalent to the use of skin grafts. In fact, it seems to me that the use of embryonic stem cells is in fact much closer to the use of embrtos to grow organs than to skin grafts.
I acknowledge that others will have a different view on this point. However, I would suggest that while this remains an issue that requires moral debate (which it does) it would be immoral to press forward with the usage of embryonic stem cells beyond what is already being done. Thoughts?
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Exploding the apologists
An article in the UK Guardian by Norm Geras looks at the various folks who have been making apologies for the actions of the terrorists. As Mr. Geras notes, this tendency toward apologies for atrocities is generally limited to those of a liberal bent, and applies only when they have sympathy for the cause that has committed or spawned the atrocity.
As further noted by the Instapundit, the press appears to be one of the bigger bunch of apologists out there. Glenn notes that the questions, in relation to today's bombings in London, seem to say that the bombings all arise because of the invasion of Iraq and so forth (yadda, yadda, yadda...). Glenn's translation of John Howard's response is well worth noting:
Translation: You're idiots, cowards, and political hacks. Yes! The preening, point-scoring irresponsibility of the press, which is if anything worse in Britain than in America, is one of the most striking things about this war, and it will be decades before it recovers. If it does.
Leaving aside the long overdue denouement of the press, it strikes me that I have heard this sort of apologist approach before, and in extremely unsavory circumstances.
It was not so long ago (perhaps twenty years, perhaps less) that if a woman was attacked and raped, one of the issues raised was what she was wearing at the time of the attack. If she was wearing clothing that could be considered in anyway provocative, then she was judged to be "asking for it" and more often than not, the rapist would be acquitted. We rightly view such a mindset as barbaric and sexist in the extreme today. Indeed, those on the left who are so quick to apologize for the terrorist acts we see would protest most loudly about such an attitude. Yet they are guilty of exactly the same sort of "blame the victim" mentality in their apologist approach. Such blind stupidity is a sad reflection of the hate they must feel toward those who are leading the global war on terror - Bush, Blair, and Howard, along with others. Further, the split thinking that is required for these apologists cannot be good for their mental health. It really must suck to be a liberal these days!
As further noted by the Instapundit, the press appears to be one of the bigger bunch of apologists out there. Glenn notes that the questions, in relation to today's bombings in London, seem to say that the bombings all arise because of the invasion of Iraq and so forth (yadda, yadda, yadda...). Glenn's translation of John Howard's response is well worth noting:
Translation: You're idiots, cowards, and political hacks. Yes! The preening, point-scoring irresponsibility of the press, which is if anything worse in Britain than in America, is one of the most striking things about this war, and it will be decades before it recovers. If it does.
Leaving aside the long overdue denouement of the press, it strikes me that I have heard this sort of apologist approach before, and in extremely unsavory circumstances.
It was not so long ago (perhaps twenty years, perhaps less) that if a woman was attacked and raped, one of the issues raised was what she was wearing at the time of the attack. If she was wearing clothing that could be considered in anyway provocative, then she was judged to be "asking for it" and more often than not, the rapist would be acquitted. We rightly view such a mindset as barbaric and sexist in the extreme today. Indeed, those on the left who are so quick to apologize for the terrorist acts we see would protest most loudly about such an attitude. Yet they are guilty of exactly the same sort of "blame the victim" mentality in their apologist approach. Such blind stupidity is a sad reflection of the hate they must feel toward those who are leading the global war on terror - Bush, Blair, and Howard, along with others. Further, the split thinking that is required for these apologists cannot be good for their mental health. It really must suck to be a liberal these days!
Monday, July 18, 2005
This free speech thing
I am sure that these musings on free speech are very obvious to most folks, but as an immigrant to the US, perhaps I have a bit more thinking to do about these things than many other folks.
I remember being struck a few years ago (post 9/11) that some people, especially in the entertainment industry, had a very strange idea of what free speech entails. I do not mean in the legal sense - I am sure I am just as clueless as any non-lawyer in that regard. I mean rather in the common sense sense (sorry about that word repetition!).
What triggered my musing was, if I recall correctly, some comments by the Dixie Chicks (or at least, by one of them) that were less than flattering toward President Bush. Yes, I know this happened a long time ago - so I do not think (or at least commit to paper) very quickly - I will not say "so sue me" because somebody might!
Anyway, an inevitable response to the comments by the chick or chicks was a certain public outcry condemning them, and encouraging folks to boycott their music. The next step was a (possibly tearful?) interview with the offending chick saying in essence how everyone was very mean, and by disagreeing with her, and threatening to boycott her music, they were trampling on her right to free speech.
This is of course, total nonsense. As I understand it, the constitution does indeed allow us free speech, but it does not guarantee that everyone will like what we say. Furthermore, those who dislike what we say are at total liberty to let the world know that they disagree with us. And, if we happen to sell stuff, they can refuse to buy it.
What I found most disheartening in the Dixie Chick response was that she expected that there would be no repercussions to what she said, and clearly felt that the repercussions (people disagreeing with her, and possibly even a drop in her sales) were terribly unfair. This is a typical elitist response - the little people have to do what I want, because I clearly know better. At the time that this event happened, I had a little chuckle to myself wondering how exactly one could enforce "fairness" toward the outspoken Dixie. Perhaps certain people who disagreed with her would be required to not only buy her albums, but even listen to them!
Of course, the absurdity of this is obvious. But what is also fairly obvious to me is the unwillingness of some to accept the consequences of their actions (or, indeed, their inactions). We are learning these days in very real ways that "freedom is not free." But this applies not only in the sense we now face in the ongoing War on Terror, but also in a more mundane sense. I am free to exercise the liberties guaranteed me by the Constitution, but that does not mean there is no cost attached!
I remember being struck a few years ago (post 9/11) that some people, especially in the entertainment industry, had a very strange idea of what free speech entails. I do not mean in the legal sense - I am sure I am just as clueless as any non-lawyer in that regard. I mean rather in the common sense sense (sorry about that word repetition!).
What triggered my musing was, if I recall correctly, some comments by the Dixie Chicks (or at least, by one of them) that were less than flattering toward President Bush. Yes, I know this happened a long time ago - so I do not think (or at least commit to paper) very quickly - I will not say "so sue me" because somebody might!
Anyway, an inevitable response to the comments by the chick or chicks was a certain public outcry condemning them, and encouraging folks to boycott their music. The next step was a (possibly tearful?) interview with the offending chick saying in essence how everyone was very mean, and by disagreeing with her, and threatening to boycott her music, they were trampling on her right to free speech.
This is of course, total nonsense. As I understand it, the constitution does indeed allow us free speech, but it does not guarantee that everyone will like what we say. Furthermore, those who dislike what we say are at total liberty to let the world know that they disagree with us. And, if we happen to sell stuff, they can refuse to buy it.
What I found most disheartening in the Dixie Chick response was that she expected that there would be no repercussions to what she said, and clearly felt that the repercussions (people disagreeing with her, and possibly even a drop in her sales) were terribly unfair. This is a typical elitist response - the little people have to do what I want, because I clearly know better. At the time that this event happened, I had a little chuckle to myself wondering how exactly one could enforce "fairness" toward the outspoken Dixie. Perhaps certain people who disagreed with her would be required to not only buy her albums, but even listen to them!
Of course, the absurdity of this is obvious. But what is also fairly obvious to me is the unwillingness of some to accept the consequences of their actions (or, indeed, their inactions). We are learning these days in very real ways that "freedom is not free." But this applies not only in the sense we now face in the ongoing War on Terror, but also in a more mundane sense. I am free to exercise the liberties guaranteed me by the Constitution, but that does not mean there is no cost attached!
Monday, April 11, 2005
The Stupid Vatican
Like Glenn Reynolds (he who shows us little bloggers the way!) I am appalled by the callous insensitivity the Vatican has shown by allowing Cardinal Law to be the principal celebrant at one of the memorial masses for the Pope. I heard this on the news this morning, and nearly fell off the elliptical machine - talk about dumb!
In case you are wondering, I am a life long Catholic. I attend Mass regularly and my wife and I do our best to involve ourselves in the life of our Parish and our Church (we are both lectors and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, for example). Nothing has tried my faith more than the scandals about sexual abuse by the clergy. My issue with this is not so much with the abusing priests - their behavior was, of course abhorrent, and totally beyond the pale. But what really bugs me about all of this is the way the abusive priests were enabled (I can think of no other word for it) by the appalling behavior of the bishops, like Law, who moved abusing priests from Parish to Parish so they could continue their horrible behavior. How dare they?
I used to think that Dante was a bit over the top putting so many Bishops in the Inferno - my lack of charity on this issue is such that I no longer feel this way.
But, imagine how those who have been abused must have felt when they heard that Law had been given a plum posting in the Vatican. And imagine how they must now feel to see him as lead celebrant in a mass in memory of John Paul II. To be sure, we all need forgiveness, and it may well be that Law has sought forgiveness for the acts he committed, abetting (in essence, if not in legal fact) the sexual abuse of children. But surely, the needs of the victims of abuse should outweigh the need (if such exists) to "rehabilitate" a bishop who rather than caring for the weakest in his flock, allowed them to be ravaged by wolves whom he protected.
The Catholic Church should hang its head in shame - as a member of that church, I do, and I pray for those who suffered because of people like Law. May God forgive me my lack of charity toward them. I do not live in the Boston Diocese, but our own Diocese (based in Davenport) has not been immune to the sexual abuse scandal. Horrendous documents detailing the abuse and the knowledge of it can be found at the Bishops Accountability website. If you are Catholic, then you should read these documents, but be prepared to weep as you do so, from both anger at the prelates who allowed this to happen, and grief for the children who suffered this horrendous abuse.
OK - I'll quit ranting now - I hope you don't mind me venting on this issue - thanks!
In case you are wondering, I am a life long Catholic. I attend Mass regularly and my wife and I do our best to involve ourselves in the life of our Parish and our Church (we are both lectors and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, for example). Nothing has tried my faith more than the scandals about sexual abuse by the clergy. My issue with this is not so much with the abusing priests - their behavior was, of course abhorrent, and totally beyond the pale. But what really bugs me about all of this is the way the abusive priests were enabled (I can think of no other word for it) by the appalling behavior of the bishops, like Law, who moved abusing priests from Parish to Parish so they could continue their horrible behavior. How dare they?
I used to think that Dante was a bit over the top putting so many Bishops in the Inferno - my lack of charity on this issue is such that I no longer feel this way.
But, imagine how those who have been abused must have felt when they heard that Law had been given a plum posting in the Vatican. And imagine how they must now feel to see him as lead celebrant in a mass in memory of John Paul II. To be sure, we all need forgiveness, and it may well be that Law has sought forgiveness for the acts he committed, abetting (in essence, if not in legal fact) the sexual abuse of children. But surely, the needs of the victims of abuse should outweigh the need (if such exists) to "rehabilitate" a bishop who rather than caring for the weakest in his flock, allowed them to be ravaged by wolves whom he protected.
The Catholic Church should hang its head in shame - as a member of that church, I do, and I pray for those who suffered because of people like Law. May God forgive me my lack of charity toward them. I do not live in the Boston Diocese, but our own Diocese (based in Davenport) has not been immune to the sexual abuse scandal. Horrendous documents detailing the abuse and the knowledge of it can be found at the Bishops Accountability website. If you are Catholic, then you should read these documents, but be prepared to weep as you do so, from both anger at the prelates who allowed this to happen, and grief for the children who suffered this horrendous abuse.
OK - I'll quit ranting now - I hope you don't mind me venting on this issue - thanks!
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Sunday night thoughts
Well, my plans to get some more stuff up on my blog have been a bit hampered these last few days. First, our cat, smokey, died. She was 17 years old, having been born the day we arrived here in Iowa City. Her mother, PhuPhu, had yowled loudly in the back of the car as we did the three day, cross country U-Haul thing, and was extremely put out about things (not surprisingly - I'm pretty certain she kept her legs crossed the whole way, being unwilling to give birth in the car out of some unknowable feline directive). Tensho (our dog at the time) and I were quite happy to be in the U-Haul for the trip - it was old, rickety, slow, but at least relatively quiet (if you ignored our singing - well OK, mostly mine, but Tensho did contribute a time or two).
This was not how I had intended to start the blog, but these things happen. One of the many things which have drawn me to blogging are phenomena like catblogging. I had hoped, in due course, to do a little of my own, but it was not to be (leastways, not until another cat appears in our lives, which will likely be some time). I can, and no doubt will, still do some dogblogging.
Anyway, I was struck by some of my own personal observations in regard to Smokey's death, and how it impacted my. These are offered, perhaps somewhat strangely, in the context of the death of Terry Schiavo. I hope people will not think linking a pet's death with the death of Ms. Schiavo as being in any way disrespectful. It is not intended to be so.
Of course, others have written at length about the heartwrenching case of Ms. Schiavo (see, for example, Hugh Hewitt). My own thoughts are much more personal, but I hope they might bring something to the conversation. We have had four pets die on us. Two (Tensho and Mitzi, Smokey's sister) we had to have put down. Two (Smokey, and Aristotle, a St. Bernard) died naturally at home. Smokey passed away fairly peacefully in the late evening. She had been a little tired the few days previously, and was wandering around the computer room, rubbing up against legs as was her habit, when she gave a yowl, and fell over (leastways, she was on her side when I got to her in response to her yowl). She did not seem in any pain, so I simply stroked her and spoke calmly to her while she died. Within five minutes of that yowl, she was peacefully dead. Aristotle died in the night about three years ago, again with little noise or fuss (getting his body to the vets for cremation was another thing, very noisy and lots of fuss, but that is a story for another day). In both cases, I missed the pets a great deal, but felt very much at peace about their passing.
The same was not true with either Tensho or Mitzi. We decided, with both, to take them to the vets and have them put to sleep because they were no longer able to move themselves and were clearly in great distress. In both cases, I was a total basket case. I was crying so badly with Tensho that they would not let me leave through the waiting room! This made me wonder what was different between these four cases. It was not that I loved Tensho and Mitzi more than Smokey and Aristotle, or any less, either. Rather I think it was the unnatural termination of their lives (even though this was the correct thing to do - one of the most serious responsibilities of owning a pet is helping them find peace at the end of their lives). Is part of the issue with Ms. Schiavo that her life was ended unnaturally? And what is an unnatural ending? I wish I had answers that I could confidently and cogently argue (I have answers, but I suspect my answers are based more on emotion than on reason at present). If there is one blessing which can be drawn from this horrible case, perhaps it is that we need to discuss these end of life issues, and what it means to be a living person whose life should not be terminated. Further, what is an unnatural ending of life?
This was not how I had intended to start the blog, but these things happen. One of the many things which have drawn me to blogging are phenomena like catblogging. I had hoped, in due course, to do a little of my own, but it was not to be (leastways, not until another cat appears in our lives, which will likely be some time). I can, and no doubt will, still do some dogblogging.
Anyway, I was struck by some of my own personal observations in regard to Smokey's death, and how it impacted my. These are offered, perhaps somewhat strangely, in the context of the death of Terry Schiavo. I hope people will not think linking a pet's death with the death of Ms. Schiavo as being in any way disrespectful. It is not intended to be so.
Of course, others have written at length about the heartwrenching case of Ms. Schiavo (see, for example, Hugh Hewitt). My own thoughts are much more personal, but I hope they might bring something to the conversation. We have had four pets die on us. Two (Tensho and Mitzi, Smokey's sister) we had to have put down. Two (Smokey, and Aristotle, a St. Bernard) died naturally at home. Smokey passed away fairly peacefully in the late evening. She had been a little tired the few days previously, and was wandering around the computer room, rubbing up against legs as was her habit, when she gave a yowl, and fell over (leastways, she was on her side when I got to her in response to her yowl). She did not seem in any pain, so I simply stroked her and spoke calmly to her while she died. Within five minutes of that yowl, she was peacefully dead. Aristotle died in the night about three years ago, again with little noise or fuss (getting his body to the vets for cremation was another thing, very noisy and lots of fuss, but that is a story for another day). In both cases, I missed the pets a great deal, but felt very much at peace about their passing.
The same was not true with either Tensho or Mitzi. We decided, with both, to take them to the vets and have them put to sleep because they were no longer able to move themselves and were clearly in great distress. In both cases, I was a total basket case. I was crying so badly with Tensho that they would not let me leave through the waiting room! This made me wonder what was different between these four cases. It was not that I loved Tensho and Mitzi more than Smokey and Aristotle, or any less, either. Rather I think it was the unnatural termination of their lives (even though this was the correct thing to do - one of the most serious responsibilities of owning a pet is helping them find peace at the end of their lives). Is part of the issue with Ms. Schiavo that her life was ended unnaturally? And what is an unnatural ending? I wish I had answers that I could confidently and cogently argue (I have answers, but I suspect my answers are based more on emotion than on reason at present). If there is one blessing which can be drawn from this horrible case, perhaps it is that we need to discuss these end of life issues, and what it means to be a living person whose life should not be terminated. Further, what is an unnatural ending of life?
Monday, April 04, 2005
Hello There
Greetings, and welcome to my blog. Having been a reader of blogs for a number of years now (more than five depending on what you define as a blog) I am ready to take the plunge and write my own. As a result, I am likely to make all sorts of mistakes as I begin, so if you are reading this, please bear with me while I try to get sorted out!
I am starting to blog because I greatly admire a number of bloggers out there. In my next post, I will try to list those whom I regularly visit, and note those who have had a significant impact upon me. In the meantime, thanks for visiting, and I hope you come back again soon!
I am starting to blog because I greatly admire a number of bloggers out there. In my next post, I will try to list those whom I regularly visit, and note those who have had a significant impact upon me. In the meantime, thanks for visiting, and I hope you come back again soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)