Inciting Violence
Could it be that by declaring certain living beings non-persons or non-humans we are encouraging violence on our fellow humans? I think yes. Once you commit the bold error of saying that certain burdensome people really aren't persons or humans, what will prevent any of us from also declaring the people that bother us as non-persons? Those buying into the Master-race lie will then receive the green light to act out their disdain of these so called non-persons?
Some may say this is an absurd example not likely to happen. It happens today any time that tribal groups go to war with rival tribes who live in the same country. It happens when gang members kill rival gang members simply because they belong to a rival gang. Murder in these cases isn't viewed as an act of killing a fellow human. Instead it is a Crip killing a Blood or a Tutsi tribesman killing a Hutu tribesman.
When any of us takes a Utilitarian approach to medial ethics, where do we draw the line? The ethical thing becomes doing what is prudent for us at the moment. When you throw out objective morally based on Natural law you have in effect removed the barrier to open murder. Right to life becomes a matter of subjective choice based on what suits us at that moment. This cheapens the value of we humans and opens the door to killing one another whenever it suits us. This is a dangerous situation indeed, and hazardous for our health.
HHH
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Euthanasia, Infanticide and Abortion: The Epitome of Intolerance.
Intolerance from the tolerant
I was reflecting on our hideous culture of death, just yesterday. The political left generally hails itself as the tolerant ones. Any time Christians or those believing in absolutes criticizes those on left we are labelled as intolerant.
The culture of death in fact is the most intolerant collection of individuals that today exists . How else would you describe those who advocate the murder of the elderly or infants born with a disabling condition? Murdering someone simply because you don't want to put up them or be inconvenienced by them is singularly intolerant.
To my ghoulish opponents I have but one word for you: HYPOCRITES.
HHH
I was reflecting on our hideous culture of death, just yesterday. The political left generally hails itself as the tolerant ones. Any time Christians or those believing in absolutes criticizes those on left we are labelled as intolerant.
The culture of death in fact is the most intolerant collection of individuals that today exists . How else would you describe those who advocate the murder of the elderly or infants born with a disabling condition? Murdering someone simply because you don't want to put up them or be inconvenienced by them is singularly intolerant.
To my ghoulish opponents I have but one word for you: HYPOCRITES.
HHH
Monday, November 10, 2008
Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid!
Hiding behind a position of superiority
There is a flip side to supporting the duty to die ethic. Sure, right now it is easy to cast a death sentence on the un-born, the mentally ill, and the elderly who are sick. Right now, it is easy to point the bony finger of death at other people. What happens when years down the road those who are younger begin pointing the same finger at our current pundits of death? When one head injury, one chemical imbalance or one debilitating illness makes the same fools considered to be too expensive to maintain medical care? Or someone feels it is taking too much of their time to care for them?
Where to run, indeed, when you have closed your own escape route. G. K. Chesterton said it well, "those who marry the spirit of the age often find themselves divorced!" A quote from one, more modern, philosopher comes to mind, "I pity the fool!"
There is a flip side to supporting the duty to die ethic. Sure, right now it is easy to cast a death sentence on the un-born, the mentally ill, and the elderly who are sick. Right now, it is easy to point the bony finger of death at other people. What happens when years down the road those who are younger begin pointing the same finger at our current pundits of death? When one head injury, one chemical imbalance or one debilitating illness makes the same fools considered to be too expensive to maintain medical care? Or someone feels it is taking too much of their time to care for them?
Where to run, indeed, when you have closed your own escape route. G. K. Chesterton said it well, "those who marry the spirit of the age often find themselves divorced!" A quote from one, more modern, philosopher comes to mind, "I pity the fool!"
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Misdefining our Terms
Diluting the term Human
At the root of the forward march of Euthanasia lies a continuous narrowing in the definition of who is human. If you trace the progression it first began with removing unborn children from the class called human beings. So, it followed it was permissible to kill the unborn child.
The next class to be removed from human status were the less than perfect, but nonetheless born, infants. Mental and physical imperfections suddenly excluded infants from human status and therefore made it permissible to end the lives of these defenseless creatures.
Now, it is the elderly who happen to be suffering from illness that are no longer considered full humans. The most frequent reason given for this reclassification; cost to families and disrupting of their perfect career paths.
Since when is "inconvenience" a reason to stop considering some one human?
These changes in the definition of what constitutes a human have only happened in the last 40 years. This makes them modern whims or trends. As a side note, study the path of German medicine in the 1920's leading up to its finest moment in the Nazi culture of death. You will find a shocking parallel to our own culture's rush to end more lives. The Nazi's T-4 program was designed to stop burdening society with the less than perfect.
And just what is the basis for these changes?
The short answer is that it originates in the prevailing opinion of those I would call spoiled and lazy brats. Once we allow opinions to determine who is human and who is not, the real fun begins. Where does this truly stop? Other than a return to classical absolutes there is no way to put the brakes on this run away choo-choo.
Lessons from the past
I would like to end this entry with a quote from a German who was imprisoned in the death camps of Nazi death camps, Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
At the root of the forward march of Euthanasia lies a continuous narrowing in the definition of who is human. If you trace the progression it first began with removing unborn children from the class called human beings. So, it followed it was permissible to kill the unborn child.
The next class to be removed from human status were the less than perfect, but nonetheless born, infants. Mental and physical imperfections suddenly excluded infants from human status and therefore made it permissible to end the lives of these defenseless creatures.
Now, it is the elderly who happen to be suffering from illness that are no longer considered full humans. The most frequent reason given for this reclassification; cost to families and disrupting of their perfect career paths.
Since when is "inconvenience" a reason to stop considering some one human?
These changes in the definition of what constitutes a human have only happened in the last 40 years. This makes them modern whims or trends. As a side note, study the path of German medicine in the 1920's leading up to its finest moment in the Nazi culture of death. You will find a shocking parallel to our own culture's rush to end more lives. The Nazi's T-4 program was designed to stop burdening society with the less than perfect.
And just what is the basis for these changes?
The short answer is that it originates in the prevailing opinion of those I would call spoiled and lazy brats. Once we allow opinions to determine who is human and who is not, the real fun begins. Where does this truly stop? Other than a return to classical absolutes there is no way to put the brakes on this run away choo-choo.
Lessons from the past
I would like to end this entry with a quote from a German who was imprisoned in the death camps of Nazi death camps, Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)