The Uphill Job Battle

So, yesterday I continued that seemingly unending project of getting hired. I was called to the downtown HQ to begin my extensive background check, and found that to my amazement, someone finally had looked at my file before talking to me, but that this did have some downsides.

Instead of the usual look of who are you, I was greeted with an expression that said that I had already been analyzed by the personality profilers and had been stereotyped as a nerd/intelectual, and thus I would be impractical and unable to handle challenges or stressful situations, especially those that involved some sort of physical threat. I suppose that I reinforced that first impression by dressing decently rather than however she expected me to be dressed.

In the end, however, after checking my references, I seemed to receive the stamp of approval from my background investigator.

More on the Beginning of Life

With the debate on when the soul is joined to the body and thus when human life begins, I thought it might be useful to reflect momentarily upon what is going on shortly after conception.

As the new life begins, the fertilized egg strengthens its membrane to inhibit a secondary fertilization. It also begins the process of forming new cells. Neither the mother nor the father is in direct contact with this new life at this time. Their offspring is under its own direction as the body begins to take shape. For the first few days, all the mother’s body does for the new child is direct it toward its eventual site of implantation. The newly formed DNA of the child directs some elements of its formation; however, the DNA cannot solely be the motive principle of the new life. The DNA will not change throughout the life of the child (except when it is inaccurately copied by a cell). Moreover, the DNA is acted upon by the cell, rather than acting upon the cell. The DNA is copied in toto when the cell divides into two new cells, and the DNA is copied in part when certain parts, RNA, are needed for various cellular functions. It is the master plan for the functioning of the cell, but like an architect’s blueprint which does not cause the house to be built, the DNA does not by itself cause a cell to be, live, or function. Something else must direct the life of the cell and of the whole creature.

Moreover, DNA or any other feature of a single cell is unable to account for voluntary action, or the intellectual grasp of universals. The brain certainly has some function in mental activities, including sensation, sensible memory, and imagination.

Materialists

In a certain sense, it is surprising that the modern materialist philosopher does eventually advert to some notion of the soul rather than just giving up on the question. He thinks of the soul as part of the ancient mysticism that we enlightened moderns have been liberated from. However, the strict materialists that every high school chemistry class in the country is turning out (with their strict and antiquated Bohr models of atomic and subatomic structures) is left with nothing to advert to when it comes to explaining life. The scientist, unguided by philosophy that is truly grounded in nature, seeks to create life by mixing together a vat of amino acids and electricity in an acidic atmosphere to create a single protein, which incidentally is not life. In order to explain the leap of faith that the scientist is making in holding that this extremely improbable action would happen in nature, the scientist is required to hold that the world has already existed for an extremely long period of time, if not eternally. Additionally, the scientist is required that over enough time, every possible combination of events will occur. However, again this is quite a leap of faith. Not everything that is imaginable in our picture thinking imaginations is something that is potentially possible. I can imagine that I could sprout wings and fly, and thus you could say that it is possible, but I have no real potency to do such.

The possible is the rationalist’s replacement for the Aristotelian distinction of act and potency, which helps to ground both philosophy and science in the real. The potential is based upon what something could actually do or be but currently is not, while the possible is based upon what is conceivable in the mind but currently is not. Equating the possible and the potential is little more than sloppy philosophy and egoism.

The Abortion Debate

Since I mentioned abortion in "Political Myopathy," I thought that it would be worthwhile to undertake a more thorough investigation of the various opinions on the subject. There is a vast array of opinions about whether and when abortion should be legal. We will begin with the most radical pro-abortion view and work our way back.

1. Since birth is primarily an accidental change, and children do not have full and active use of the faculty of reason until around age 7, any child up to this age may be aborted.

2. Since birth is primarily an accidental change, and children do not even recognize reason in another, let alone actively use reason, abortion ought to be allowed up until children are able to recognize and follow reason in another.

3. Abortion should be allowed up until the child is born, at which time he becomes a person and a citizen of his country, and thus entitled to life.

4. Abortion ought to be permitted up until the age of viability, at which time it is only accidental that the child is in the womb.

5. Abortion ought to be permitted up until the age of quickening, at which time the child exhibits explicit and quantifiable signs of animal life.

6. Abortion should not be permitted at any point, since the child is a distinct human person from the moment of conception.

Although the first two positions are only rarely proposed, since the laws of every country that I know of rightly consider this to be murder, they seem to be fairly logical extensions of the pro-abortion stance. They are based upon something that is more intrinsic to man than birth.

Still, the use of reason is still potentially present in the individual from the moment the human soul is joined to the new matter. However, until the matter is sufficiently developed, the individual is unable exercise reason. A notion and understanding of the role of soul seems to be the underlying problem in this whole debate. Although the ancients noted that something beyond matter is necessary to explain life. A purely material and physical understanding of the universe is unable to distinguish between or account for the difference between the living and the nonliving. If you were shown a picture of a person and were asked whether he was sleeping or dead, you would be unable to answer.

Now you say, this is still a bit superficial. What if you were able to examine the individual? You would check the individual's vital signs: heart beat, breathing, brain waves, etc. These days, the medical field defines death as the absence of brain waves, but as I mentioned in my post "The meaning of Death" on 23 May 2008, at least two individuals have spontaneously regained "living" after having previously ceased brain function. So called vital signs are signs that generally accompany life, but are insufficient for accounting for or causing life.

We should all just read Aristotle's De Anima.

The ancients still had a hard time explaining what was in utero, especially when in the early stages of gestation, but they all agree that it is at least potentially a fully functioning human person. We now know through ultrasound imaging and surgical procedures that the child moves about under its own power much earlier than previously thought. The ancients could only rely upon the sensation of the mother, but we can "look" into the uterus. The child is also distinct from the mother from its first moments. It has distinct DNA, and its cells are functioning under their own direction to develop the child's body.

This is a tough issue, and unfortunately many on both sides are driven by emotion rather than reason. The discussion also strays into rather accidental matters such as the difficulty in raising a child. No doubt raising children is difficult, but if one is not in such a state as to accept the natural consequences of ones actions, adoption can always be arranged. The real question is whether the child is a human person from the moment of conception, not whether the parents are inconvenienced or the mother's health is put at risk. Risks are not certainties, and what mother or father would not want to give his life for his children after they are born? Does not the motherly or fatherly instinct direct the parents to risk their own harm to protect their children?

Progress on the Job Hunt

Beginning a career seems to be a bit more involved than I had hoped. I have been applying for jobs in my chosen field since May of this year, and unfortunately do not have much to show for it as of yet. The application that is the furthest along is one of the last added to the application pool. The first couple of applications to process went down in flames of glory as I began to learn the hiring game that I was taking part in. In a lot of ways getting hired is a lot like doing well in school. It not only takes suitable study and natural aptitude, but also knowing what your teachers are looking for. Thus, to get hired, you have to get a feel for those who are hiring you, and be able to articulate what they are looking for better than they are able to. Thus, my first two applications failed as I worked to figure out what was going on, my third ended when I discovered that the department was not one that I wanted to work for, and the last four applications are still pending.

It also helps when you are applying to a bigger department. If only a few people are being hired out of a big applicant pool, the department is more concerned with finding any excuse to disqualify someone rather than with finding the best applicants. However, if may are being hired, then to some extent the department is forced to take a more serious look at the applicants at each stage to determine the strongest ones.

I suppose that this is all theory for now. We shall see what I think when I am on the other side, but that will have to wait for a while.

I also have to fight the prejudices of those who are interviewing me. My background is unusual but not unheard of for this career. I heard about one at least partially similar case when I was finishing my M.A. in Florida. An officer with the Ft. Myers PD also had a Masters Degree in theology. So, this has been done before, but it is a bit of a hard sell.

Apology

I must apologize for the extended silence of this blog. I do not have continual internet access as I did when I began the blog. Nevertheless, I do have regular access to the internet, but generally without adequate time to write blogs. In the future I will try to write throughout the week and post a week worth of blogs over the weekend. You will notice the blogs appearing all at once, but I will date them as they are written.

If anyone still bothers to look at this blog, your persistence and patience will pay off shortly.

Unintended Consequences

Last week I finally got around to ordering health insurance for myself. The window of time to get insurance without an official gap in coverage was swiftly drawing to a close. I had already gotten insurance for my wife through her employer. Since she is not a full time employee, she does not automatically receive insurance, but she is given the option to buy into her employer’s plan. We were especially interested in having her insured since we are expecting the birth of our first child in late January or early February. Now buying into this plan is rather pricey, but having done the math, it looks to be somewhat less expensive than paying the hospital bill out of pocket if all goes well, and much cheaper if there are any complications. So, there is nothing too unexpected here. No one really wants to insure a pregnant woman, but an employer’s HMO could care less, since they pay a flat fee to the doctor whether any services are provided or not.

The real surprise came when I applied for my own insurance. I am not interested in joining my wife’s plan, since it would more than double our premiums. Her employer only gives the option for single coverage or a family plan. Thus, this is not a cost effective way of covering just two individuals. Being a healthy 24 year old, I figured that procuring private insurance for myself would not be that hard. I shopped around a bit, and settled upon a plan with a moderate deductible, and a premium that is just a bit over a tenth of what we are paying for my wife’s insurance. However, just yesterday, I received the following letter:

Dear Mr. Simplicius,

Thank you for your application for health care coverage provided by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City.

After careful review, we regret to inform you that we are unable to accept your application at this time due to YOUR SPOUSE’S PREGNANCY.

…

Sincerely,

Underwriting Department

Now, I was quite astonished when I read the letter. Since my wife was not being included on my policy, I could see no reason for her pregnancy to have any influence on whether or not I could receive coverage for myself. So, I called up the Underwriting Department and told them that there must be some mistake. I was not insuring my wife on this policy, and thus that she is pregnant should not be of any concern. However, to my amazement, I was told that I was mistaken. Her pregnancy was of the utmost importance to my insurer. The state requires insurers to add a newborn to either of the parents’ policies without underwriting, and since there could be many complications with a newborn, the insurance company would not offer private insurance policies to either parent.

Thus, I am uninsurable except through a group plan or through state insurance.

What sounded like a good bill to legislators, viz., requiring insurance companies to cover babies, just resulted in their parents, and thus the children as well, being uninsurable. Thank you Missouri, that was brilliant.

Political Myopathy: Gen. Colin Powell endorses Obama

As the presidential race heats up in anticipation of November 4th, the presidential race continues to become more and more troubling. While I cannot whole heartedly approve of either candidate, as both have flawed views on major issues, McCain at least shows more promise on his grasp of foundational or first principles. Roe vs. Wade has been and continues to be one of the central issues of American politics, whether or not it is explicitly invoked. Why should Americans be concerned about one single issue? Shouldn't the candidate's whole platform be an object of consideration?

In a way yes, and in a way no. International relations are important, as is the American economy, energy independence, and the environment, but none of these matter in the end if we decide that we can murder those who are inconvenient to us. Legalizing and supporting abortion signals a fundamental change in our approach to life. Children are now looked upon as a problem if they don't come at a convenient time, so we eliminate the mother's burden. But what substantial difference is there in the child a few moments before he is born and a few moments after he is born? Where does the slippery slope end. Additionally, why not use the same approach at the end of life, or anytime in between? A just war doctrine would no longer have any bearing, as these principles are extended to their logical conclusions. Wars can be fought for any reason, or none at all. As my wife is fond of saying, "Only the niceties of circumstance keep the pro-abortion mentality from being against any inconvenient life."

While everyone ostensibly agrees on the first principle that murder is wrong, the primary disagreement is about one of the proximate conclusions from this principle: abortion is murder. The child does not become a person at birth, or at the age of reason, but at the beginning of life. As far as it goes, I think that for the pro-abortion camp, it is much more logical to say that a child becomes a person at the age of reason than at birth, since birth is necessary in a certain sense, but in another it is rather accidental to the whatness of the individual. The further actuality of our specific difference is much more intrinsic to what we are than birth seems to be. Anyway, I would be interested in your comments on the matter. Also check out this link.

So...let's follow the lead given to us by the title of this post and take a quick look at some of Colin Powell's explanations for his endorsement.

Powell said a major part of his decision to turn his back on his own party was his conclusion that Obama was the better option to repair frayed U.S. relations with allies overseas.

Again, while good foreign relations are both beneficial and useful, it is not the central issue.

"I think he is a transformational figure," Powell said. "He is a new generation coming ... onto the world stage and on the American stage. And for that reason, I'll be voting for Sen. Barack Obama."

New generation, sure. Inexperienced, yes. Racially motivated endorsement, perhaps. I have a hard time not doubting General Powell's motives in endorsing Obama.

As a key reason, Powell said: "I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration."

In other words...good bye strict constructionists, hello legislating from the bench. The current trends will continue as we have seen in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut. No more natural law. Law becomes arbitrary, and the country moves another step toward the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. I don't think that it is "Change that You Can Believe In," but it is change that you can count on.