Earl Aagaard’s opinions about everything that interests him. Og also enjoys gardening, travel, reading, woodbutchery, and lots of other stuff.
Powered by ExpressionEngine
So now those who love CHOCOLATE have caught the bug from the wine folk…......
Tim Richardson reviews Mort Rosenblum’s book on the dark, sweet stuff.
Read the entire review of “Chocolate”
Reviewer Kevin Miller is “thankful that Eastwood used this film to give the question of assisted suicide the moral gravity and attention it deserves.”
I think some of the responders have a better grasp of Christian reality than the reviewer. No, I haven’t seen the film, but if the Bible tells us anything, it’s that some things are always wrong – taking an innocent life is surely one of them. I’m sure that at times, I won’t like that message, either…..but principles don’t exist for the times where we all know the right and want to do it!
![]()
Sarah Scantlin and her mother Betsey Scantlin
HUTCHINSON, Kan. (AP) - For 20 years, Sarah Scantlin has been mostly oblivious to the world around her - the victim of a drunken driver who struck her down as she walked to her car. Today, after a remarkable recovery, she can talk again.
Who is Terri Schiavo and why is she important?
Ethics & Life’s Ending: An Exchange by Robert D. Orr & Gilbert Meilander. Published in the August/September issue of First Things.
Robert Orr, MD, Director of Ethics for Fletcher Allen Health Care and Professor of Family Medicine at the University of Vermont College of Medicine, states that:
The moral debate about the use or non-use of feeding tubes hinges on three important considerations: the distinction between what in the past was called “ordinary” and “extraordinary” treatments; the important social symbolism of feeding; and a distinction between withholding and withdrawing treatments.
Gilbert Meilaender, a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, disagrees:
“Choosing life” does not mean doing whatever is needed to stay alive as long as possible. But choosing life clearly means never aiming at another’s death—even if only by withholding treatment. I am not persuaded that Dr. Orr has fully grasped or delineated what it means to choose life in the difficult circumstances he discusses.
Read the whole discussion here.
J. Budziszewski’s article in First Things is finally online. Good stuff.
So weighty is the duty of justice that it raises the question whether mercy is permissible at all. By definition, mercy is punishing the criminal less than he deserves, and it does not seem clear at first why not going far enough is any better than going too far. We say that both cowardice and rashness miss the mark of courage, and that both stinginess and prodigality miss the mark of generosity; why do we not say that both mercy and harshness miss the mark of justice? Making matters yet more difficult, the argument to abolish capital punishment is an argument to categorically extend clemency to all those whose crimes are of the sort that would be requitable by death.