The American Spectator

Stuart Koehl| 3.20.09 @ 6:26AM

"r. Hillyer, in his unexceptionable essay "Monstrously Anti-Life," says that the "fetus is a life form" but also claims that, "We do not know, nor will we probably ever know, when a human being becomes ensouled." Does he not see the inconsistency?"

No, I actually don't see any inconsistency. That the fetus is a life form is indisputable: it is genetically different from its parents, which makes it a unique life form. That much is scientifically indisputable.

Regarding the issue of ensoulment, that is not so much scientific as metaphysical, and metaphysical truths cannot be proven by scientific method--it is an epistemological impossibility.

That said, if I cannot prove that a fetus as a soul, neither can anyone prove that it does not. In such situations, simple moral prudence dictates preferential treatment of the fetus because of the disparate consequences of being wrong in one's opinion about it.

Put simply, if I believe the fetus has a soul, and I am wrong, then preventing a woman from getting an abortion, I have put her through nine months of relative inconvenience, and perhaps a little bit of embarrassment. At the end of her term, she can keep the child or put it up for adoption, but either way, her inconvenience is over, and the child lives.

On the other hand, if a person who believes the fetus does not have a soul is wrong, and allows the woman to have an abortion, then he is guilty of killing an innocent human being, the consequences of which are permanent--especially for the innocent human being.

In such circumstances, to act against the fetus without clear knowledge of its possession of a soul constitutes negligent homicide, in the same way that a man who blows up a derelict building would be guilty if he did not first ascertain that there were no people inside before setting off his explosives.

Stuart Koehl| 3.20.09 @ 6:29AM

"Since the soul is the principle of life, that which differentiates a living organism from insensate matter, that which makes matter LIVING, the soul is present, HAS to be present, in every living thing from the moment of its conception. "

I should also have pointed out that this belief is not consistent with Judeo-Christian doctrine. Only man is a true psycho-somatic entity with both a material body and an immaterial soul. Angels are pure spirit, animals are pure matter, but only man combines the two in one person, thus only man has the potential to attain physical immortality.

Gian| 3.20.09 @ 6:43AM

Is soul something that can be grafted onto a material body?
Or soul something like a formal cause?. A human has a human soul and a bug has a bug soul.

Stuart Koehl| 3.20.09 @ 8:33AM

"Is soul something that can be grafted onto a material body?
Or soul something like a formal cause?. A human has a human soul and a bug has a bug soul."

A soul is the non-corporeal, immortal hypostasis of an individual human person, brought into being (so Christianity teaches) through they physical conception of that individual. Souls are not pre-existent (contra Origen), nor are the platonic 'ideals" of persons (that's gnostic), nor can souls be destroyed by the death of their bodies. And that is why bugs don't have souls. Because the whole human person is an inextricable mix of body and soul, the soul itself is incomplete without the body; thus, for Christians and Jews, the eternal destiny of man is not some disembodied existence in "heaven", but rather a real, physical resurrection in glorified bodies reunited to their immortal souls for all eternity.

frost| 3.20.09 @ 8:34AM

Such audacity -- letter-writers presuming that they KNOW when the soul enters a fetus? I've read that it probably happens when said fetus is "viable" - - but WHO (aside from God, of course) KNOWS FOR SURE?!?
And to have a bunch of presumptuous know-it-alls lecture we "unwashed" that they're privileged with such classified information? Appalling, nothing less!

james f. csank| 3.20.09 @ 8:38AM

To Mr. Koehl: Animals, you say, are pure matter. On the contrary: animals have non-rational souls; that's why they can move, grow, and heal. Oh, yeah, I know, it's metaphysical, blah, blah, blah. But metaphysical truths are still truths.

james f. csank| 3.20.09 @ 8:42AM

To frost: if the soul enters the body when it becomes "viable," what was the fetus doing before, when it was growning, when its heart was beating, when it was kicking in the womb? To say the soul enters only when the fetus becomes viable, that is, can live outside the womb, is to be blind to the facts. I, on theother hand, audaciously recognize them.

frost| 3.20.09 @ 9:35AM

What I read, James, was a bit of admitted speculation, based (as I recall) on various "reincarnation" thoughts/writings.
They suggested that shortly before or immediately before the actual birth, that's when the soul entered into the equation, after it was pretty much assured that the fetus would "make it" and become a real baby, hence the word "viable." As noted, it was an idea, a writing. I know not whether it was accurate -- and candidly, I resent some presumably all-knowing individual (zealot?) lecturing about his/her intimate knowledge of God's doings.
I admit that I sure don't know -- and to read such pontification ("facts"?) is sheer unadulterated presumption, speculation. Either that, or you're much closer aligned with The Angels than the rest of us....

Rocco| 3.20.09 @ 11:30AM

Mr. Molyneaux, you are correct in your concern, which I share. You are absolutely correct about the Russians. We as a society are absolutely ignorant about history. Henry Ford once said, history is bunk, and many people in this country, particularly in our government (mainly elected officials) believe it. That is why we never understood why the Serbs were so aroused by the Kosovo mess. Although the battle of Kosovo Polje was in 1389, in the historical memory of many Serbs, it's like it was yesterday. They live it. It's part of their being, their culture, their history. For better or worse, they still see the Turks, or rather the Muslims, as the Ottoman enemy. We will never change that - they will, when it's time for them to do so, in the same way that Greeks and Turks have come to terms, and have even assisted each other during natural disasters.

Your assessment of Obama and his seeking to accommodate, or rather, appease, other countries (our enemies?), is the most worrisome.

Stuart Koehl| 3.20.09 @ 2:54PM

"To Mr. Koehl: Animals, you say, are pure matter. On the contrary: animals have non-rational souls; that's why they can move, grow, and heal. Oh, yeah, I know, it's metaphysical, blah, blah, blah. But metaphysical truths are still truths."

You may believe this. I merely point out this is not Judeo-Christian teaching. Sorry my karma ran over your dogma.

Stuart Koehl| 3.20.09 @ 2:57PM

To both Frost and Csank: As I said, one cannot "prove" anything about the soul because its existence is a metaphysical, not scientific issue. But, as I also said, this inability imposes upon us the requirement to act as though the fetus did have a soul, because the consequences of treating it (or him, if you prefer) as though it was lacking are potentially catastrophic. I suggest that we take an apophatic approach to the unborn child, since the only thing we can say for certain about him is he is not merely a blob of tissue.

frost| 3.20.09 @ 4:10PM

Sorry, Stu, not to be argumentative, but that last sentence offers some "problems" - - and for those who insist or pontificate that any interruption of a conception is “killing a human life,” consider: the egg comes down the Fallopian Tube and doesn't place/set itself within the membranes/walls of the uterus for 3-4 days.
An embryo or fetus is not an "unborn child" for quite a while -- a protoplasm-of-potential, and a viable being. The Central Nervous System doesn't exist until the 6th to 8th week, a time when most feel abortions are certainly permissible. A 'beating heart' does not mean "life" (which is why many adults sign Living Wills). The Freedom to Choose simply can mean that hardship - the prolonged suffering of unwanted children, and extreme emotional stress (of both mother/child) can be eliminated. A three day old human embryo is a collection of just 150 cells, that’s all……… It’s called a blastocyst. For the sake of comparison, there are more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.
Those factoids will, of course, tick-off those extreme folks, but that's okay - - we don't have to answer to you, only to God. My wives and I were/are all pro-CHOICE (what is there about the word "choice" that some people fail to understand?), yet we account for having had nine wonderful and productive children

Crusader| 3.20.09 @ 5:42PM

If a fertilized egg isn't an uborn child then...what is it? Human egg + human sperm = ????? An unborn flower? Dog? Salamander? Turnip?

As far as viability goes that's a loaded question. A year old baby wouldn't be "viable outside the womb" without a lot of attention from mom and dad. But then again it would not surprise me if abortion evolves to where you can kill your child up to a year after delivery due to its "unviability" (or inconvenience, as 99% of abortions are because the mother doesn't want to be inconvenienced). Whatever floats your boat. I mean really, how many of us have memories from when we were 6 months or a year old? Were we really people then? Could we feel pain then? Did we have a soul?

My wife is pregnant with my third baby, about 6 weeks along. We had an ultrasound and although we could not hear the heartbeat, I could see this little clump in there with what looked like a blinking light in the middle. That was my baby's heart beating. Don't tell me that little baby isn't a person or doesn't have a soul.

Its uncanny and sad how human beings attempt to rationalize what their hearts know is true.

Crusader| 3.20.09 @ 5:54PM

Choice. What a load of garbage. Please don't pontificate about "choice." The woman had a choice. She could choose not to have sex. She could choose not to engage in behavior that would lead to a pregnancy. She already "chooses" when she spreads her legs.

But let's examine "choice" since we're so hung up on it when it comes to killing babies.

What choice to I have if I don't want my tax dollars to pay for killing human embryos in the name of "research?" None.

What choice do I have if I want to use my money to send my kids to private school instead of paying taxes to support gubmint indoctrination centers? None.

What choice do I have if I don't want my tax dollars to pay for abortions? None.

What choice do I have if I don't want my tax dollars to support Hamas? None.

Here's one that's actually in the Constitution. What choice do I have if I want to own a full-auto M16? None. Well I take that back. I guess if you count jail as a choice.

I could go on but you get the point. If it were just about "choice" how come we don't get a choice in other things? Its not about choice. Its about getting a free pass for irresponsible behavior, just like with everything else in this country. And frankly I'm sick of paying for other people's "mistakes."

I don't want to hear about poverty and crime blah blah blah. If abortion was needed to stop "unwanted pregnancies" to these poverty-stricken mothers, how come there continues to be these thugs from the ghettos committing crime? I might have respect for pro-deathers if they would man-up and say, "You know what, let's just put all the kids in the projects to death since they are a drain on society." I mean, it was a good enough reason when they were in the womb, right?

Crusader| 3.20.09 @ 6:09PM

Frost, since you are the be-all and end-all, just when DOES an embryo magically become a human baby? If it pisses you off so much that people like me believe it is at conception, please explain to me why my view is incorrect? You may call a three-day old fetus a "blastosyst:" I call him my baby. When did your wife's blastocyst become your son or daughter? 6th week? 12th? Since you know all there is to know please tell us.

So what kind of life are we "interrupting" when an human being undergoes an abortion? Is it a dog's life? Is it a cat's life? It boggles my mind that people truly believe that a fertilized human egg isn't human.

Frost, is the baby human at 32 weeks of gestation? What if he is at 32 weeks and survives an abortion? Human or no? Do we just stick him in a closet since because he's not wanted he's not human? But if we stick him in a closet and he "dies" doesn't that bring up a problem? I mean how can someone die if he weren't alive? They couldn't be "alive" if they weren't "a life," right? So what do you call it when a baby at 32 weeks survives an abortion? Not alive but not dead yet? Unviable? But then why do they make so much noise? A person with a beating heart on life support sure doesn't cry and wave his arms or kick his legs, does he?

But what about premies? The difference between premies and botched abortion survivors is---what? One is wanted and one isn't? So maybe to be considered "human" you have to be wanted? So can I go kill homeless people at random? I mean they are not wanted anymore so they're not human right? What about old people in old folks homes with no family. Obviously they are not wanted-they have no one left to want them. Let's kill them, after all they're just a drain on society.

So many questions, but since you are the be-all and know-all, I eagerly await your answers.

frost| 3.20.09 @ 7:27PM

If the preceding, pontificating zealot (Mr. Rabbit?) were to re-read my comments, said smart-ass would cease using such stupid terms as that last "be-all-and-know-all" garbage. I certainly made no such claim! Hardly.
The topic appeared to deal more with the subject of soul entering a pending occupant, not a nonsensical rant filled with supercilious assumptions and the almost inescapable and proverbial name-calling we've come to dread. Such unnecessary audacity.
You, sir, have your tunnel-vision -- and, as stated earlier, I won't attempt to change your rather narrow way of thinking and the various innuendo included therein.
Have it your way. I’m certainly not going to try changing your way of “thinking.” If you do…
In the meantime, I (as a Deist/independent Independent with very Libertarian leanings) will remain open to a variety of ideas, will continue reading, observing and learning new things - - and, shall now retire to the pool and vacuum it. So, if you’ll pardon me…

Angel| 3.20.09 @ 7:30PM

Frost, as you get older, understand that someday, you might be on the wrong side of the 'culture of death'. The same callousness you show toward the innocent preborn, will be shown to you. Count on it with this monster as president. It's called karma.

frost| 3.20.09 @ 8:08PM

Appreciate your concern, Angel. Yet, at age 74 (going on 23) I've finished cleaning the pool, walked the dog (actually, he walked me), and had yet another in the continually never-ending series of conversations with God - - whatever he (or she, should God have a gender) decides is fine with me. I can go anytime and be perfectly happy.
Hardly callous I'd say, nor too overly judgmental either.

Angel| 3.20.09 @ 9:26PM

As you age, frost; I hope you are shown more mercy than you have shown the innocent babies. I think you are very judgmental; God is, too.

IMKessel| 3.20.09 @ 9:44PM

Good evening, all.

Frost, as always, enjoy reading your responses. Mr. Molyneaux and Rocco, a pleasure to see you as well.

I usually don’t enter the fray here – you people play rough and I have little love for foolish arguments, but today, well, I can’t resist the solid and thoughtful back and forth.

Full disclosure: I am Jewish and follow the Reconstructionist branch of Judaism with a heavy influence from Martin Buber; theological existentialist (a belief God exists but He is allowing us to find our way) with a strong Falliblist tendency. (The Cosmological Argument has an a priori assumption that the if God exist position is already answered in the affirmative; the Falliblist also posits the existence of God, but points to Biblical and extra-biblical texts for evidence that God does indeed make mistakes; this allows for the logical and consistent belief in both free will and God.)

So much for throat clearing. (Thank you for your patience.)

Atheists cannot answer this question intelligently. What existed before The Big Bang? They offer no explanation ex nihilo. Ms. Rand left little for Objectivist with her pithy “Existence exists.” (Even the greatest spokesman for atheism, Anthony Flew, arrived to the logic of God’s existence.) Also Atheists are at a loss at how to explain natural law. Science is based on consistency of these laws and the observations based upon them, but science itself cannot explain authorship of said laws and principles. Science can explain the material why DNA but can offer nothing of the Creator (or creator) of the principles behind the science of DNA.

Now, to the question of soul and science. Materialist have posited for years that if one supplies enough software and hardware, consciousness must follow. No AI machine has come close to even approximating animal awareness, let alone human consciousness. (With much due respect to the late and beloved Robert H. Heinlein, Mike (Mycroft) will forever remain science fiction.)

Mr. Koehl, beautiful arguments. Do I detect a touch of the Jesuit? You wrote, “Souls are not pre-existent (contra Origen).” (Point of clarification; not looking to argue the point) Do you hold 2 Esdras as Holy Writ? Also (up for argument here), Ecclesiastes 4:3, one who is never born is better than anyone who has been born. The aborted fetus (soul) has avoided sin and therefore is guaranteed a place in heaven? (Not an argument for committing abortion, to quote Dumas, “The price for playing providence is hell," or more biblically based, often the agent acting on God's wrath is punished for sin as well.)

Viability can be a slippery slope, especially to hardcore materials/atheist. Utilitarian Robert Singer’s posits equality in slaughtering animals for food to murder of the weakest of society, the terminally ill and mentally deficient. So, yes, caution is indeed needed, but caution does not logically eliminate all choice. People of good will can disagree peacefully.

Metaphysics make for wonderful speculation and argument, but not for the clearest laws. Since a soul is not a provable quantity, I am for complete choice for the first 20 weeks after conception. The needed systems for life outside the womb are present by the 22nd week. (The probability of survivability for a child born at this juncture is highly limited but greater than zero.) After this time, choice becomes a matter of the mother’s physical health. (Judaism, a religion of laws comes down on the side of protecting the life of the living mother over that of the unborn tissue. On the other hand, the mental health argument is truly a slippery slope that lends itself to Crusader’s fears and concerns, though otherwise, Crusader’s commentary, and those like it, is why I generally stay out of this arena.)

My personal belief is that since we are made in God’s image and He is not physical (please see of "negative theology" (also known as "Apophatic theology",), a soul is a logical and necessary entailment to this belief. (God, science and logic need not be in conflict.)

Angel, karma does not stand the test of logic. (Open to argument.) Also, karma was dropped as a Christian concept over a thousand years ago.

Gentlemen and ladies, good evening.

frost| 3.20.09 @ 9:56PM

Candidly, I feel kinda sorry for just hardcore judgmentalism -- people supposing that they know God's will. Audacious.
To call ME judgmental is really quite dumb; it's not me lecturing how you (or anyone) should act on that topic. As noted earlier, I'm pretty "open" to learning new things, but I admit -- I'm intolerant of intolerance. Consider: abortion is presently legal in the USA with 330-million people.... we have something like 1.6-million abortions-a-year, right? It may be less now. But, Brazil, with 40% of our population, has Twice as many ILLEGAL Abortions-a-year. At the end of the 1900s it was estimated that 100,000 women have died in Rumania by ILLEGAL abortions since they were outlawed.
Then, semi-associated topics, like battered children? 2.2-million abused each year. And, lest we forget, the “unwanted burdens;" 450,000 kids suffer abuse or neglect - or are in foster/state facilities... "Who wants ‘them’?” Adoption??? 51% are non-white minorities - but most prospective adopting parents want white or healthy kids.
Another quick thought before it’s forgotten in this extemporaneous epistle, as most "Pro-Life" people also believe in the death penalty, they aren't really pro-Life - - they're Pro-BIRTH, right? Just something to consider....
And now, pardon me -- gotta finish "Atlas Shrugged" (again). Last time was maybe 35 years ago, Mr. Kessel.
But first, about your Big Bang observations, I read somewhere the hypothesis that, at some point of singularity in space, an extremely dense ball-of-matter exploded, ‘ay? And thus the universe was born. That, of course, prompts the question as to where that matter came from - - to which there are two potential answers, right? It always existed – eternally self-existent, or an eternally self-existent God created it. Okay, but, to believe that that self-existent ball of matter just simply exploded? On its own? Nope, that does not follow the Law of Physics. Isaac Newton’s first law stated that “an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.” So, from whence did this external force come? Who or what “pushed the button?” Something known as God appears to be most logical. At least to me.....
One additional thing worthy of some thought in the "Evolution" conversation maybe -- there’s "One Small Item" that could hardly have evolved without some Godly help -- God gave women the clitoris. Think about it.
The ultra-right and anti-sex evangelical would prefer to look elsewhere and deny it -- and conversely, the evolutionary guy might have some difficulty explaining why such an item was present, but, hey, if they’re not God-given, why are they there? Now, back to the book...

frost| 3.20.09 @ 10:06PM

PS/Also love Robert Heinlein too!

IMKessel| 3.20.09 @ 10:18PM

Frost, you old b@st@rd! God love ya.

I have enclosed a link for you. A man of logic, such as yourself, may find much food for thought in Scholasticism on (Christian) theologic beliefs or Maimonides for (brilliant) Jewish systematic beliefs.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/

Be well.

Angel| 3.20.09 @ 10:39PM

That's the problem (one anyway) with men: You don't use enough of your heart. I didn't claim karma was logical (don't put your words in my mouth), and I don't care who dropped the concept. I just know if I didn't create it--I have no right to kill it. Guess you could say it's 'above my paygrade'. It's disgusting to me that pro-aborters routinely list the assorted faults, problems and ills in our society--and then use them as an excuse to kill the most innocent. Easy to make them the scape-goat, hell; they can't even vote! So soothe your consciences, feel extra warm and fuzzy about your goodness; but the culture of death you so eagerly embrace for others--could come back to bite your ass. Lovely clitoris remark, Frost. Pertinent to the subject at hand, too. You sure you're 74, and the book you're reading is Atlas Shrugged? I've got my doubts about both. But, then again, I have a lot of doubts about you.

Angel| 3.20.09 @ 10:40PM

You're both bastards.

frost| 3.20.09 @ 11:19PM

Pardon my insensitivity, "Angel," but we were talking about God and His works -- or some of them anyway. I don't comprehend your doubts about Atlas Shrugged or being 74. I may have the attitude(s) of a younger guy; am married to a college professor only 58 with lotsa initials after her name, and perhaps I fail to act my proper age (when I grow up I want to be a Pool Boy), but that's no reason to resort in calling Mr. Kessel and I nasty names -- that could indicate questionable karma, perhaps. Can't have that, can we?
By the way, sir, one of my AllTime Best Friends Ever was a wonderful man in Phoenix named Stan Kesselman. Concerning religion, was a choirboy and acolyte in the Episcopalian church, witnessed more than a few things which caused a more agnostic view. Time and events found me accepting God, in spades - but as a Deist. Couldn't take the hypocrisy, dogmatic absolutism; man-made rules and tons of other inconsistencies, too many to count.
Also, women blabbering "in tongues" on TV with piles of pink hair and runny mascara are as sorry as James Dobson, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jimmy Swaggart. Barry Lynn and Bennie Hinn too. Have a super weekend!
Oh/PS/note that in this last inclusion I put "Angel" in quotation marks...

Angel| 3.20.09 @ 11:43PM

Now, the bigotry rears its ugly head, and its not pretty. Smug and thin-skinned, too. The irony of it is that I would fight for your right to live too, frost. I am an equal opportunity proponent of life. Amusing that you feign shock and outrage at my use of the word, bastard; yet you don't blink an eye at your inappropriate language. Do my words sound tough? Well, your hardened attitude toward the rights of millions of the defenseless is pretty tough, too. Good luck to you, sir; and God bless you. No quotation marks needed around my name; I'm the real deal, babe.

IMKessel| 3.20.09 @ 11:51PM

Angel,

Good evening.

Men generally tend to be more logical than women with women having the countervailing prowess in empathy and general social understanding. Since men and women often, if not predominately, work together, I do not see this as a problem for either men or women. Even God has a feminine side (The Hebrew word chakmah, like its Greek (sophia) and Latin (sapientia)) attributed to Him. We, man and women, are created in His image, and since we are both in that image, it is logical to deduce that feminine and masculine qualities originate in Him. Some men have greater capacity for feeling than women and some women are more logical than men. The problem may lie in how these qualities are valued, and that masculine qualities are more valued in a patriarchal and patrilineal society, but that is not what you have written, and I don’t want to put words (or anything else in your sweet mouth. Blessed is the tongue that sings the praise of God Almighty).

I did not state nor imply that you believed karma or any Aryan/Indio concept was logical; I was pointing out that I did not believe the system is rational. I was, and remain, open to debate on the topic.

If you don’t create something, you have no right to kill it? Does the person who created the, for sake of argument let’s call “it” an “object”, keeping “it” singular as the grammatical construction implies, destroy it? Is this right transferable? Does God have the right to destroy man because He created us? If he exercises this right, does God remain a moral being? Or is God beyond morality itself? (These questions are raised by better men than I, include father Abraham and Moses.) Does the object have to be sentient to have this protection? Is the potential for sentience sufficient? Man does not create vegetation or animals, but biblically were we explicitly given conservatorship over all creatures of the world and the world itself. Further, within this right/responsibility matrix, the right to kill (though never murder). Man has been given a right to change objects, and all forms of change destroy what was to make what is. Or are you positing that only a woman has a right to make decisions about abortion? (Leaving aside the issue of the male portion of creation.)

I am no pro-abortion. I am simply not for making it illegal from the moment of conception. The argument was that since the soul is a metaphysical agent and therefore beyond human scope of evidence and proof, basing laws on such an intangible not practical. Your moral absolutism demands more of society than it is willing to give and denies rights to many based on a faith that is not absolutely shared. God gave man both faith and logic not to compete for a favored seat in man’s (or God’s heart) but so man may act wisely and compassionately. Your position denies both.

If the unborn are the most innocent (and Catholics and other religionists do not agree they are absolutely innocent (the doctrine of Original Sin)) do they not have the greatest chance at being seated at the right hand side of God? Do not women who have sinned need protection of both man and God’s laws and love more than the unborn?

Questions to consider. If you wish to answer, I will do you the courtesy of responding.

May God bless you and keep you.

IMKessel

PS, Frosty, good to have a well equipped ally.

What did you think of my responsibility response? I always enjoy hearing your thoughts.

frost| 3.21.09 @ 12:17AM

You may be a tad too polite maybe, Mr. Kessel. Yet, in a quick review of the woman's (note, I didn't say "lady's") comments, I fail to note the bigotry, smuggness and thin-skinned qualities she spoke of, and I really do try for at least semi-swellness. What "inappropriate language" was there, pray tell (if you'll pardon the expression)?
In any event, as illustrated earlier, I'm sure not pro-abortion (what is there about the word "choice" that is so offensive?), but, again, there's that old argument, valid, I think, about having some numbnut congressman or other entity telling my daughter what she can /cannot do with her body. How that kind of question can incite such animosity and name-calling actually confuses me, really.
Finally, for now/this evening, my critique would suggest fewer polysyllabic responses, lest the world gets confused and suffers Terminal Angst or excessive Teeth-gnashing. The content certainly seemed excellent. Logical too.
Again, great weekend, 'ay?!?

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 12:34AM

Mr. Kessel, I am aware of your prodigious intellect; frost's, too. I didn't think I was getting two adversaries for -one- innocent comment. Frost has a posse; who knew? My point is merely this; everyone has the same rights. No one is above the other. I understand mens' desire to protect women; we are smaller and weaker, after all. But I am a woman--isn't it incumbent upon me to protect those who are smaller and weaker than I? The culture of death isn't just about abortion: It directly impacts all of us who are vulnerable. I am not an avenging angel, Mr. Kessel. Abortion breaks my heart, but I don't judge. I'm the girl at the Post Abortion Counseling Center who opens her heart and arms to those women who are grief-stricken over their abortions. I guess you could say that I help pick up the pieces. I know that you are both men of good will, maybe a little wrong-headed; but that's all men (just kidding, frost). I hope you understand that I speak from the heart, and I mean no ill: And I don't have pink hair with 50 lbs. of mascara on my lashes. Offensive!! God bless you, too.

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 12:38AM

Try as I might to be civil with you, frost--you make it an impossibility. Pig headed, smug old fool, you've got quite a mouth on you.

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 12:45AM

Frost, I wasn't going to let you run me off with your sly use of intimate female anatomy. I don't like to be bullied. I was quite surprised at your boorishness, though.

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 1:06AM

Trust me, Mr. Kessel, nothing of yours shall ever be put in my sweet mouth. Ever.

IMKessel| 3.21.09 @ 1:14AM

To both,

Ira is fine, though I am glad to see that some people do continue to use the formal greeting until invited to do otherwise. (My daughter's teacher sent a letter to me addressing me by my given name and I responded to her by addressing her by title; she responded in kind, which was appreciated. Formality continues to have its place.)

To the point, I still read Slate, but I rarely post there any more; the responses were often more flame than illumination. Here, in general, we can disagree with civility (though I find some postings here to be vulgar, hateful and bigoted. On the up side, they are always corrected by intelligent and witty responders.) The ideas exchanged here are often of extremely high quality. I look for certain writers, Frosty, of course, but also Messer. Molyneaux, Santore, the well named Bev Gunn and many others. Plus the feuds Roush and Dooley are up there with James J. Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander, or at least Jane Curtain and Dan Akroyd.

Lastly, Frosty, you cantankerous gentleman, I use to use the polysyllabic words to impress cuties with lots initials after their names and now that I have one, I just can't break the habit. Speaking of cuties, your talk of clitori, Big Bang Theory and pushing buttons reminds me that I am not where I need to be.

Good night and God bless.

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 1:38AM

Men are men regardless of the plethora of initials, titles and/or numbers after their names. I feel like I'm 15 and back in high school after my little exchange with you two. Guys just NEVER grow up. Hope you don't change--you amuse us. Good night, gentlemen.

frost| 3.21.09 @ 9:42AM

As expected, Dagny, John, Henry, et al., succeeded... or will, again, soon. 1,084 pages! "1984" is next, again. Wish Trevanian had been around longer. Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke too.
A distinct pleasure Mr. Kessel -- not quite as sure with Angel (I jest, trust me). Happy Saturday from the Texas Gulf Coast, from a guy who never went to college, per se, except to teach a couple classes. Also, in total agreement with the aforementioned Mr. K about his favorite writers and/or contributors. Add Diane Smith, from whom we haven't heard much of late, and a few others -- so many times their thoughts/ideas exceed the professionals on staff; some profound stuff.
Angel, I was not being crude in citing that part of the female anatomy, really! If it were not for such wonders, truly, admit-it-or-not, the world's population would be considerably lower, and far less happy. So very seriously, I thank God they exist, many times over!
Might check back later to see what other amusing or enlightening additions are submitted. Enjoy!

Stuart Koehl| 3.21.09 @ 10:23AM

"An embryo or fetus is not an "unborn child" for quite a while"

I disagree, for one very simple reason: genetically, a fertilized egg is identical to the fully grown human being he will become. He is thus, from the moment of conception, biologically human. And because he is biologically human, he MAT have a soul. We can neither prove nor disprove that. Because we cannot disprove it, we must act as though he did.

Mary| 3.21.09 @ 11:24AM

Tom Wolfe names three people who have radically altered culture and society. Those three are Jesus, Calvin and Freud. I think he’s absolutely right.

I don’t need to go into how Jesus turned everything upside down; time was split by and through His existence.

Too briefly, perhaps, but my take on Calvin is that he perfected the humanity of God, following upon the heels of St. Paul and Augustine who had already made God into a predestination monster, with a metaphysic so turgid and always on the verge of destroying coherence.

Eric Voegelin considers Calvin's institutes another Koran because he embarked on an understanding and discipline of God that proceeded from his mind alone. In other words, he began anew reordering close to 3,000 years of historical thought on God. I think Calvin was immensely intelligent, but I think he was a great hater as well. His polemic was so hot and so personal.

Augustine, too, was capable of both great love and great hate, but in the area of sex he could be, as Paul Johnson described him, a “mob orator.”
And he did a lot of damage, coming between a man and a maid, as he did. There's a part of me that despises him without end.

In an Army of Angels, a historical novel on Jean d’Arc, the author notes that Jean underwent an internal as some sort of test of heresy. Imagine that; with a bishop presiding? And a reminder of the dangers of anachronistic thinking resolves nothing here.

For all of our revved up sexuality, we’re a nation of prudes. Frost’s comment on the clitoris is not inappropriate. Though I think of the act of insemination as far more big bang -with an immeasurable accompaniment of seed. Buddhists believe "it's all in the testes."

If I could return to life as a man the first thing I’d want to experience is sex. I wouldn’t want to be a man, outside of experiencing that, because I think it’s more difficult to be a man than to be a woman. But there’s a big difference between being the piercer and the pierced, and my curiosity regarding both the physical and psychological effects on a man is healthy.

The order and beauty of union, while necessitating its reproduction of life, seems so Trinitarian to me. Severing the act from life is doable, but not without cost.

Anyone who has had an abortion understands what they have done in denying the gift of the breath of life that was not denied them.

It's an act of murder, in my view. Camile Paglia admits that too, though she is pro-choice. She’s honest, and though we may not agree, she's not my enemy. Pro-choice is a bit of a misnomer though: left unmolested the baby grows as the mother eats and sleeps and lives; the choice comes then to stop the baby from continuing to grow and develop.

If the baby is an intruder in the womb and as such can be eliminated, he’s an intruder or trespasser in the crib too. He’s completely helpless and as reliant on the good will of his mother as he was in the womb. And he remains reliant even past the day that his languages is so developed that he can actually say “Mommy, I want to live. Please don’t take my life.”

As Paglia notes, it's very much the strong acting against the weak. Lovers, and those like Ovid who appreciate the great art of seduction, know it too. And that’s the superiority of the pagan who rejected the loosing of fecundity between man and maid.

The problem with RvW is that it has elevated abortion to a right, and by default, a good.

I’m sure that years ago fathers accompanied their daughters to medics who would eliminate their offspring. The difference was that it was a negative bond, one which they would likely never speak of again. Now, the father can feel almost a positive bond as he seeks to help his daughter rid herself of her fetus and his grand-fetus. I think fetus means young one.

A few days ago it was reported that an Oxford Professor proposed that the organs of aborted fetuses be used for organ transplants. I think this is disordered and I would note dangerous, but we passed the point of danger a long time ago.

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 11:47AM

Liar. Would have gotten your face slapped if you had said it to my face. Chicken.

frost| 3.21.09 @ 11:56AM

Interesting comments, Mary, thanks. Can't help but wonder, though, who's the target in Angel's potential face-slapping? And, the chicken?

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 12:00PM

You have no right to judge, Mary: You weren't part of the debate. Obviously, you don't understand the context in which frost made his 'remark'. I did. Speak for yourself in the prude department.

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 12:02PM

Gee, I wonder, considering you're the only one who responded to my comments. Mary would have nailed you, too.

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 12:09PM

Then again, I believe Mary grew up in Europe--and they have a different sensibility regarding sex: May be she would have dug it. You go, girl!

frost| 3.21.09 @ 12:40PM

Whew, you sound like a mighty unhappy and somewhat frustrated woman, "Angel." Yes, the quotation marks are back. But are you attempting to disallow Mary a right to chime-in? She apparently read most or all of the preceding stuff, and it seems a tad unfair to call her bluff simply because she disagrees with you on an item or two. Seems like a mighty sharp lady, and not necessarily because she doesn't disagree with me either...
Sad, very sad that you're apparently so unhappy with (at least) "some" areas of your life. If you're unable or unwilling to reassess those factors, perhaps you'll cease criticizing those who fail to agree with your premise, maybe?
In any event, I wish you better stuff than you're apparently experiencing today... and yesterday...

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 1:00PM

Smart-ass. I do okay with men; no complaints here. Enough of you, already--bikini time is coming up fast--so I'm going for a run. 4 miles with interval sprints. Top that, mister. Good day.

frost| 3.21.09 @ 1:16PM

Thanks, but I really value my knees, feet and such, so I'll continue to walk. WALK, with the dog, on our beach - - or, and pardon me for possibly "grossing-you-out," but the remainder of my exercize actually happens in bed - and maybe a few isometrics while waiting for the toast-to-pop...
Hard as it may be for you to believe, I really am not a smart-ass...
Honest. But fortunately, I'm able to find humor in some hard-to-find places; irony and satire seem to be a pretty large part of enjoying life too. Wish more people could capture those fun feelings too.
Now, if you'll pardon me (again), think I'll go grab some enchiladas con queso at our nearby grazing site. Enjoy, if you're able...

IMKessel| 3.21.09 @ 1:40PM

Tom Wolfe’s choices are good ones, but other equally good lists can be made.

If I may...

Saul of Tarsus (nee The Apostle Paul or St. Paul) in many ways more influential than Jesus himself, if one doesn’t concede the point of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, which I do not concede. Without Paul’s efforts, the acorn that was the teachings of Jesus would not have grown into the mighty oak it is today. His teaching would have made for small reform in Pharisees and little or no impact on the Sadducees. (The question of who influence whom and in what order in regards to the Essenes continues to be debated hotly by academics and theologians.)

John Calvin was influential, but why bypass the original reformer of the church, Martin Luther? He is the one who ripped down the standing barriers of the single mightiest institution known at that time. His theology was strong and he created the breathing space needed for those who followed?

Ah, Freud, to paraphrase Charles Dickens’ Fagan towards the end of Oliver Twist, people called you wise Jew and wonderful Jew until you are not so useful anymore. Freud, like many early explorers, found more with his errors than most found on their truest efforts, but the man has been pilloried over the years, rightly on some issues and wrongly on others. I do not deny the importance of the man, but what about Einstein? What would the world look like without his influence? But, to be fair, since I was willing to throw Calvin to the wind because he climbed on the shoulders of giants, lets do the same to Albert. Einstein was clear that Newton had built the ivory stairs of understanding the universe.

Just spit balling.

Enjoy the day.

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 1:43PM

Oh, I'm able. LOL

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 1:44PM

Oh, no--not you again. Sleep well?

IMKessel| 3.21.09 @ 1:47PM

Angel and Frost,

Play nicely. You are both reading too deeply into the other’s writings. And you are finding what you are seeking: trouble.

Frosty, to those who run for the pleasure of the run, no pleasure can be likened to the exhilaration and relaxation of the long run. I can’t speak to Angel’s reasoning, though I infer training as opposed to the joy of running of itself, I can say for myself that running was once a joy. Sadly, you are spot on with the knees. Mine gave out 15 years ago and now it’s biking and that just is not the same.

Angel, Frost is a good man. But any fool can tell you that if you hold a steak to a junk yard dawg, don’t expect to pull back a steak or a hand. Juz a lil’ advice for what it’s worth. 

Ira

Crusader| 3.21.09 @ 2:08PM

For such a "smart" (quotation marks are back) guy Frost, you sure are scared to answer even ONE of my questions. Maybe you should ask your "wife" with all the "initials" after her name.

So Frost if a human sperm fertilizes a human egg, what is the result if not human?

Its funny the guys with inferiority complexes who drop names/degrees/colleges online to make themselves seem important. Oh and do you want a cookie for cleaning out your own pool or walking your dog? Sheesh!

IMKessel| 3.21.09 @ 2:15PM

Crusader,

If I had you a acorn, did I give you an oak tree?

IMKessel| 3.21.09 @ 2:16PM

typo correction: hand not "had"

Thank you.

frost| 3.21.09 @ 2:36PM

Better take up real reading, Mr. Rabbit. If you'd properly perused earlier stuff, you'd've seen where it's my wife with the degrees, not I....
I barely made it thru the proverbial School of Hard Nox -- yet my humor remains intact, and also a sense of tongue-in-cheek realism. Like, if it says in Geneis that God breathed life into that clay thing (pardon me, but I haven't picked up the Bible, in which I do not accept as factual-factual, but mention here for the sake of argument), that might imply that human life does not begin until the first unaided breath, maybe.
Frankly, I am not God, so I can't say when, with any humungous degree of certainty what God thinks -- but I'll stay with that answer until Mr. Kessel or someone with some Real intellegence can suggest otherwise convincingly.
Departing for some other duties (I have yet to be bored in "retirement" -- too much going on!), so I'll leave y'all with this quotation (which I hope you'll remember -- there may be a test later...): "It's what you learn After you know-it-all that counts."

Mary| 3.21.09 @ 2:38PM

While Luther may have begun the face down with Rome, it was Calvin, who by his Institutes reordered what Luther merely wanted to reform.

Luther's real legacy, I think, is that he broke the back of the papacy.

Luther's view of the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is integral to understanding RCism at that time and now, and his argument with Zwingli on this matter, was the first blow against the cohesion of those churches that dared to face Rome down.

Calvin tried, as much as he could, to stop the endless fissiparity that you witness today in the Western church. The power of his Institutes, along with the residual cultural riches that Rome had advanced and maintained, allowed him -along with the politics accompanying the fending off Muslim aggression- to exert enormous influence.

I think of the US as being inseminated by Calvin and his New Zion seeking Puritans. As such, and spanning these centuries, Luther, by comparison, is an after thought.

I do think a good argument can be made that while St. Paul preached Christ crucified, his god, as Nietzsche wrote, is the negation of God: The maker of vessels of wrath. He was such in the Old Testament too. But as Deuteronomy notes, God loves the Alien. Paul's God does not appear to; Calvin's even less so.

Who is the Alien? Is he another type of God-fearer? An agnostic who has not set her heart against God, but has set her heart against the incoherent and impious doctrines that begin to make a human monster of God?

All of this against the backdrop of the trinitarian plurality, ever moving towards unity, through which God becomes Man. Does God become man solely for those predestined? What an incomprehensible and inefficient and fully human god.

This departure -not via Christ, mind you- but of "right thinking" orthodoxy began the process of moving away from the Christian living a life in a trinitarian sort of harmony, toward a life in which you have to consciously think in or espouse trinitarian terms, lest you put yourself at grave risk. This is the dogmatic absolutism that Frost refers to that is more a sign of fracturing and weakness than it is of truth infallibly grasped.

Right thinking became an impediment to charity and brotherhood. And this was on all sides, as the heretics had almost always persecuted those they accused of the same crime.

Don't have time to continue on w/Freud and the men you've named as competitors for Wolfe's game changers, though you raise good points.

Cheers.

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 3:41PM

Yeah, Mr. K--but the junk yard dawg can't do nothin' about it--so why should I care? Ha ha. Besides, doggie started it, and you laughed about his remarks. Imagine that: Men have a double standard. I was annoyed because he was trying to control our debate by using female anatomy. Mary missed the point, too. It's not my knees as much as my ankles--they hurt like a son of a b. I have to tape them so tightly it feels like a tourniquet! I'm not running for pleasure--it's bikini training. The SoCal beach scene is unmerciful in the summer--gotta get in shape. I lift weights, too.

frost| 3.21.09 @ 4:14PM

"...he was trying to control the 'debate'?" "Double standard?" Pleeeze! I was only speaking about God's wond'rous works (not any too likely under evolution), and attempted to suggest that the world was much improved as result. 'N you suggested that moi might be thin-skinned? Heavens to Mergatroid even! Mary understood, seemed to agree (certainly did not disagree); is she to be summarily chastised for not backing your opinion? Sure hope not, she seems extremely well-read and thoughtful - - but I sure won't enter into that discussion of Freud and religious stuff (and, in fact, may backoff altogether) -- 'most anything to do with organized religion I'll stay away from -- the "my- God-is- better-than-your-God" attitudes can be very disressing, especially when the MO sometimes includes decapitation, terror-suicide-bombings, Inquisitions and the like.
Which is why I escaped from the church and now go to God "direct" as a Deist.
No, I'm advocating nothing -- it simply works for me.
And finally - on the subject of running, and its inherent problems, I rest my case (Swum the 50- free and threw a lotta fastballs; once bowled a series of 85, 213, 115 -- was a licensed boxing judge and, get this, a ring announcer for Pro-WRESTLING, for which they paid me copious cash -- I'd've done it free, it was so much fun); so much for athletics. I do wish you a speedy recovery and a terrific bikini season, angelic one.
Stay well.

Angel| 3.21.09 @ 5:22PM

You, too. Take care of yourself.

Crusader| 3.21.09 @ 9:05PM

Hey Frosty, maybe it is YOU who needs to take up reading, you old idiot. Here's what I wrote,

"Maybe you should ask your "wife" with all the "initials" after her name."

Who's the rabbit now you effing moron? You don't even have the courtesy to read my posts with any bit of comprehension but feel empowered to call me names? You are a joke.

Ira, we're comparing trees to babies now? Plants to mammals? Are there "male" oak trees that mate with "female" oak trees Ira?

Apples/oranges anyone?

Sorry I don't fall for pro-deathers tricks like that. Further, it is impolite to answer my question with a question. Mine is pretty simple, human sperm fertilizes human egg = ? Why are you scared to answer?

Crusader| 3.21.09 @ 9:16PM

Frosty, did you go re-read my earlier post? I'm waiting for an apology.

BTW, is it possible for you to post and NOT list some of your "great" accomplishments, which if I am reading correctly amount to walking your dog, cleaning you pool, swimming 50 meters and "throwing a lot of fastballs." Umm, inferiority complex much Frosty?

Bottom line is while I will compromise some things (where to have dinner, what to watch on TV) I certainly don't compromise life. Its a shame too many are willing to. May God have mercy on your souls.

ruth| 3.21.09 @ 9:34PM

Crusader, sometimes the wisest course is to guard your heart and move on. I honor your heartfelt passion for the pre-born--but unfortunately, not everyone does. God bless you for your steadfast defense of these precious angels: I absolutely love you for it. You know the old adage, "Don't cast your pearls........" Peace.

Diane Smith| 3.22.09 @ 3:02AM

A friend recently forwarded to me an inquiry form"Pecos Pete" asking where Diane Smith was. Well, Pecos,with the new format and free-wheeling "Comments" and verbal food fights indulged in by people with invented names, to protect the guilty, I decided to step aside to make room for the really deep thinkers, like "frost" - although I thought when the dust settled after the election he promised that he had tickets in hand for Costa Rica or Rio and intended to use them.

All of this talk of souls and fetus and when it is a baby ! I am on the side with the fella who saw his baby's heart on a sonogram. And knew that tiny heart had a soul. Good for him. There were no sonograms when I had my two sons, but I knew the day I was sure I was at last to have a baby (absent those little pregnancy tests, too - you waited for about three months in 1954 before you dared say for sure you were pregnant) But I knew if my baby had a heart, he surely had a soul, because the couple who prayed for him and longed for him, did so with all their hearts and souls.

I would not speculate as to where or when or if, but I can tell you that no one, not even my obstetrician ever referred to my sons as fetuses. When I first felt the flutter of life, I did not exclaim "I just felt the fetus move." Nor did I ever complain of the fetus kicking me all night.

All of these convenient separations of stages of pregnancy are for one purpose - to make the "hostess" (how is that for a benign reference to the mother?) feel OK about disposing of a fetus, as it is not really a baby. Maybe we can just get rid of the offensive term "abortion" and call it an eviction.

As to the end of life, I believe the soul is immortal. And I have no proof, so "frost" can chew on that for the next week or so and not get an argument from me. I believe when you have no proof, you call it faith.

Stuart Koehl| 3.22.09 @ 9:25AM

Frost wrote:

"An embryo or fetus is not an "unborn child" for quite a while -- a protoplasm-of-potential, and a viable being. The Central Nervous System doesn't exist until the 6th to 8th week, a time when most feel abortions are certainly permissible. A 'beating heart' does not mean "life" (which is why many adults sign Living Wills)."

One should be extremely chary of such utilitarian definitions of humanity, because by their nature they assign value based on extrinsic rather than intrinsic criteria. It is a very slippery slope indeed from saying that a certain level of metabolic or encephalic activity is needed for a fetus to be human, and determining that the old, the infirm, the mentally disabled are not human. In fact, we have been down this road, before.

Also, it is a false analogy to compare living wills with abortion. A living will is the conscious expression of a fully sentient person concerning the extent of medical care in certain circumstances. An abortion is a decision by one party enforced upon a second party. To be a perfect analogy, you have to look to involuntary euthanasia.

Stuart Koehl| 3.22.09 @ 9:36AM

IMKessel writes:

"Mr. Koehl, beautiful arguments. Do I detect a touch of the Jesuit? "

Thank you. I did get my degree from Georgetown, so maybe more of that rubbed off than I thought. For myself, I am a Byzantine Catholic, which is to say, one of those strange Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome, and my theology and exegesis are shaped by the Eastern Churches.

"Do you hold 2 Esdras as Holy Writ? Also (up for argument here), Ecclesiastes 4:3, one who is never born is better than anyone who has been born. The aborted fetus (soul) has avoided sin and therefore is guaranteed a place in heaven? (Not an argument for committing abortion, to quote Dumas, “The price for playing providence is hell," or more biblically based, often the agent acting on God's wrath is punished for sin as well.)"

Most assuredly, II Esdras is part of the Canon, however, Scripture as part of Tradition is interpreted with the mind of the Church, from the Fathers through the present day. The Church wrestled for a long time with the neoplatonic issue of preexistence, and came down firmly against it; from the perspective of the Greek Fathers, man and woman are "co-creators" with God of new human life, which begins with the fertilization of egg by sperm, at which point a new human person is created. And by definition, a human person possesses body and soul, inextricably linked. Regarding the fate of the unborn, whether their deaths are natural or inflicted by man, as an Eastern Christian I hold with the Tradition of my Church that such souls are left to God's limitless mercy, nothing else having been revealed to us.

"Viability can be a slippery slope, especially to hardcore materials/atheist. Utilitarian Robert Singer’s posits equality in slaughtering animals for food to murder of the weakest of society, the terminally ill and mentally deficient. So, yes, caution is indeed needed, but caution does not logically eliminate all choice. People of good will can disagree peacefully."

Precisely. Which is why I reject all such utilitarian arguments for defining personhood. We've already been there and done that. My argument is one of simple moral prudence. If you came across something which might be a living organism or not, which might be sentient or not, which might have an immortal soul or not, is it not sensible to proceed on the assumption that it is and does, until one can prove otherwise?

On apophatic theology, we are in complete agreement; Eastern Christianity is inherently apophatic, since nothing affirmative can be said of God that has not been revealed to us by Him.

Mary| 3.22.09 @ 10:24AM

Frost, you might want to do a little reading on Traducianism.

I'm no expert on the subject, but if I understand it correctly, it posits an inherited soul. So, your understanding of Adam receiving his soul once God breathed life into his nostrils can come into play here.

That breath of life was the breath of life of humanity that Adam and Eve were able to pass along to Cain and Abel, the first babies.

If you get a chance, read Voltaire's Chinese Catechism, particularly the Third Dialogue. It's a dialogue between a disciple of Confucius and Prince Kou, Son of the King of Lou.

Cheers.

Starry| 3.22.09 @ 1:12PM

I've missed your wisdom, Diane. Frost--not so much. Ha.

Diane Smith| 3.22.09 @ 5:11PM

Can't think of a good name to hide behind, but have been trying to "riddle out" what about frost compels him to use lower case for his own name, while preening himself on the fact that he has a wife sixteen years his junior and with lots o' initials after her name....

Was it her body, her soul or all those "fancy initials" it is bad social form to use unless you are an M.D. that won his heart?

Men who brag about younger wives sound more like capons than roosters to me. They are never complimenting the wife, but rather themselves for the conquest.

Let's see, frost is 74 - if he married Dr. Frost when he was 30, the wedding must have taken place in Dogpatch, with a bride of 14. If he was 40, she was 24. Fifty? He cadged a woman who might have been "settling". Sixty? That gets him a forty four year old bride, still able to blush? Ah, but our dashing groom of 74, aspiring to be a pool boy when he grows up - that "when" carries a certain note of unfounded optimism. If Frost is a newly wed, a 58 year old wife is not exactly a filly. In four more years she will be able to sign up for Medicare. And the definitian of a Medicare recipient is ELDERLY. Look out, frost, she's gainin' on you.

Frost has a lot of maturing to do before I would trust him to clean my pool. Its OK to be 74 and OK to have a wife of 58 - but neither of them gets you bragging rights in an aging population. In spite of what you read, 50 is not the new 30 and 58 is hardly a trophy wife. My guess is that she is a mature, well educated woman who has no idea her husband is referring to her in "babe" terms online and crowing about her education. Maybe 74 is the new adolescent. Eddie Haskell with a chip on his shoulder comes to mind.

Sorry, Ms. Dr. Frost - your husband is the one who brought up the age difference and all its implications - one being that he fancies himself in possession of a studly prowess existing largely in his own mind along with sipping margaritas south of the border, where he promised to go following the election, abandoning his grandchildren to the tender mercies of Obama & Co.

Stuart Koehl| 3.22.09 @ 6:32PM

"Which is why I escaped from the church and now go to God "direct" as a Deist."

Well, that's rather shallow, Mr. Frost. Not the kind of thing one expects from a man of mature years, but rather of an adolescent in the midst of rebellion after discovering God is an anagram for dog. On the other hand, I have seen the quality of the discourse here descend precipitously in the last string of posts, so perhaps I am dealing with a slew of adolescents, after all.

ruth| 3.22.09 @ 7:22PM

Diane, Mrs. Smith--not sure which you prefer--please post more. Your witty comments have been missed more than you know. I miss Bev Gunn, too. I heard her phone into Rush's show a week or so ago: She sounded distraught about Obama's administration (who isn't?). Hope she's okay. Please come back, ladies; both of you have been sorely missed.

IMKessel| 3.22.09 @ 8:31PM

Mr. Koehl,

Thank you for your full and thoughful answer. I look forward to further engagements.

Ms. Smith, welcome back. While I did not care for tonight's statement (I very much like frost's posts), I do enjoy reading your words. I hope Ms. Gunn is back soon.

As for the many other voices, thank you. All people have made this a better debate: some by coming into it and some by leaving it.

Starry| 3.22.09 @ 8:54PM

You're a loyal friend, IMK; an admirable quality in a person. You have to admit, though; Mrs. Smith's comments are damn funny. She made this girl laugh. Sorry.

ruth| 3.22.09 @ 9:32PM

Crusader: Congratulations on baby #3!!

Diane Smith| 3.22.09 @ 11:49PM

My apologies to Ira Kessel for my tasteless and personal remarks aimed at "frost" and my congratulations on your perspicacity in generally avoiding these nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah hit and run "debates". It is not easy remembering what the subject is, quite a lot of the time.

I just recall frost's high-minded pre-election riffs on his notion of what it takes to lead the country. I had the impression he demanded a high level of honesty and then I come to find he is just a wind-bag promise breaker like all the rest. He did not leave the country after all. Which puts him in a class with Alec Baldwin.

To give Windy Frost the benefit of the doubt, though, I re-read most of his postings tonight. And due to his never-ending braggadocio, I learn that he had a series of wives, resulting in a variety of children. Goodness, I can almost hear strains of The March of The Children from "The King and I". But at least he did not have a child bride.

Mr. Kessel, I am sure you are able to separate the chicken salad from the chicken - uh, something else served forth by frost nightly, ad nauseam - and deal with him strictly on an intellectual basis, but I find myself wishing he could, by osmosis, perhaps, benefit from the many initials after his wife's name and stop using "we" when he should say "us" and "I" when he means "me". I am sure you, as a teacher, have noticed this and are too gentlemanly to point it out. I am not.

It would be helpful if he would abandon the "judgmental" thing. We are all judgmental. If I say frost is judgmental, I have just judged him so - making me judgmental. If we move through life avoiding being judgmental about anything - - well, that is a dreary prospect, indeed.

Still have not thought of a sheltering "nom de blog" but I have one for anyone seeking one -
"Scaramouche" Whaddya think? For anyone else I mean. I gotta be I.

Stuart Koehl| 3.23.09 @ 7:00AM

If I may be so bold, Miss Smith, to suggest a screen name appropriate to what I have seen of your posts so far: "Bandwidth Waster".

Diane Smith| 3.23.09 @ 2:19PM

Thanks, I needed that, Stuart, Had it not been for your enlightenment, I would have continued under my delusion that bandwidth was infinite and anyone could play. As Groucho Marx said, when asked to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence - "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." I haven't been thinking clearly since "the people spoke" and put Obama in the White House. That would have been the time Republicans were loony enough to choose McCain to run against anybody.

I have an idea to conserve bandwidth and elevate the discussion. I will recommend you to Wlady to screen all posts. You may be so bold.

Waste not, want not.

Stuart Koehl| 3.23.09 @ 3:07PM

"Thanks, I needed that, Stuart, Had it not been for your enlightenment, I would have continued under my delusion that bandwidth was infinite and anyone could play."

My pleasure, Ma'am.

"As Groucho Marx said, when asked to use the word "horticulture" in a sentence - "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." "

I do believe that was Dorothy Parker, but I might be wrong.

"I have an idea to conserve bandwidth and elevate the discussion. I will recommend you to Wlady to screen all posts. You may be so bold."

He'd have to pay me a lot. More than when I was writing for the Spectator, to be sure.

ruth| 3.23.09 @ 11:21PM

Deeply saddens me to see two of my favorite Conservatives at each others' throats. Both are endowed with stellar intellects, are deliciously droll and just seem to be so damn decent. Diane and Stuart, I enjoy all of your posts: I learn something from reading what you've written--every time. Is this tiff really over frost's indelicacies--or is it because you, like I, are heartsick at what is happening to our beloved country? I believe it is the latter. God bless both of you.

Diane Smith| 3.24.09 @ 2:25AM

Yes, you could be wrong. So could I. As both Marx and Parker belonged to the Algonquin Club, they probably stole from each other. I read it as a quote from Marx, who was also asked to use the word, "punctilious" and the convoluted sentence involved his sister,"Tillie" and ended "you have no idea how punk Tillie is."

If it was Dorothy Parker who said it, you have robbed me of one of my favorite wits. Once my office mates were indulging in a little fantasy involving who they would like to be stuck in an elevator with. I was involved in reading NR. After they had exhausted their choices - Burt Reynolds, Tom Selleck, etc., they asked me. I said "William F. Buckley, Alastair Cook and Groucho Marx."

However, I can say with some confidence, that Dorothy Parker said this: Upon arriving at a Halloween party she inquired as to what frivolity they were engaged in. They answered "Ducking for apples." To which the acerbic Ms. Parker replied, "Except for one letter, that could be the story of my life."

If you want to waste bandwidth with me, we can argue till the cows come home on who said what. Does it really matter if it was S. J. Perleman, Oscar Levant, or James Thurber who said it? Yeah, I guess it does, to some.

It was James Thurber, blind (or nearly so - you may want to correct me on that, too) cartoonist and humorist who said an apt epitaph for him would be "Long time no see". And don't tell me it was George Shearing. He said, upon hearing a glass fall from a tray and shatter on the floor, "We must in in Scotland, I just heard a Glasgow." I know. I was there.

Diane Smith| 3.24.09 @ 3:02AM

To "ruth" - thank you for calling to my attention what a shrew I have been. It is quite true and inexcusable. It used to be, the only folks I "netttled" were Liberals. Now, I see it is most anyone in my path. And I know why. My heartbreak is closer to home. I was saddened and angered at the flippant (to me) way in which some were discussing something as sacred to life, as one's soul.

I have not been reading TAS for some time and only this last week returned to scanning it. Sadly, I jumped in just when they were discussing souls and when and if we had them.

My husband of 63 years had a stroke on February 6. I thought I could "will" him to live and I was mistaken. Its part of the "Leo" hubris, I guess. He died on March 3. But being lonely doesn't entitle me to be mean.

My mama always said,"If you can't say something
nice, don't sayu anything at all." Good advice, and I am taking it.

Stuart Koehl| 3.24.09 @ 5:41AM

Dianne,

Nice try. I looked it up. It was Dorothy Parker.

ruth| 3.24.09 @ 11:53AM

Diane--I thought so. I know you loved (love) him dearly. God bless you, and may your sweet husband rest in peace.

ruth| 3.24.09 @ 1:40PM

Mr. Koehl, apparently I've misjudged your character. Are you petty? Most certainly. Decent? Not so much.

Stuart Koehl| 3.24.09 @ 8:09PM

Not petty, just not fond of condescension and misdirection.

ruth| 3.24.09 @ 9:02PM

Well, Mr. '"When I was writing for the Spectator," look in the mirror to see the real smirk of condescension. So glad you only post at AmSpec now: I'd rather not be subjected to any more of your smug drivel than is absolutely necessary.

Stuart Koehl| 3.25.09 @ 12:01PM

So, Ruth, you enjoy when people hijack threads in order to pursue personal vendettas unrelated to the topic at hand, using long, meandering posts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

And you call me "petty"?

Please.

We were having a nice, substantive discussion here until frost, Angel, and latterly Diane decided it was about each others personal foibles. For which I am supposed to be what? grateful?

And read or don't read what I write. It's your loss if you don't.

ruth| 3.25.09 @ 3:44PM

Ha ha, I knew it. You are petty, thin-skinned and a self-appointed AmSpec thread monitor. Doesn't recommend you, sir.

tiffany jewellery| 8.14.09 @ 4:05AM

Very good to see the tiffany jewellery tiffany jewellery tiffany jewellery links of london hollister clothing ed hardy christian audigier abercrombie
feeling quite.

Nfl jerseys| 8.27.09 @ 11:08PM

It is a wonderful article: NFL jerseys,Photoshop CS2,ghd Hair Straightener,Adobe Photoshop CS4.

dropshippngwatch| 8.31.09 @ 4:29AM

Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Replica Watches Trade
Replica Watches
Replica Watch
Fake Watches
Replica Watches
Replica Watches
Replica Watch
Replica Tag Heuer Watches
Replica Tissot Watches
Replica Tudor Watches
Replica U-Boat Watches
Replica Ulysse Nardin Watches
Replica Vacheron Constantin Watches
Replica Versace Watches
Replica Watch Accessories Watches
Replica Zenith Watches
Replica Zenith Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com

Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 3:33AM

This handbag is so unique, Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
Bridal Gowns
and I never see it’s sold in the stores, where did you get this one please?

fsdjk| 10.16.09 @ 3:33AM

shanghai massage
turntable bearings

groupshoes| 10.24.09 @ 3:12AM

Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.

fdjk| 11.13.09 @ 8:57AM

beijing massage