Modernity's Anchorless Journey

There is a great deal of talk about compassionate death. At the same time I hear people advocating respecting the wishes of the dying. These two approaches show me just how far our present generation has fallen from logical and sensible truths.

Instead of the terms Compassionate Death, the correct term is Compassionate Murder. Murder is the premature ending of a life, period. The word simply doesn't mean something else because some muddleheads placed a happy adjectives in front of it. It was called murder when Hitler did it, it was called that when Pol Pot did it, and it was called that when Serbs exterminated Muslims in the former Yugoslav republic.

The reason murdering the elderly or disabled is called compassionate is because some claim it is better for the family. Medical costs, and the burdening of family members is frequently cited in support of this rubbish. Let's break the concept of compassionate death down to its basic parts. It is merely murdering a living person because it is more convenient to kill them. By this definition, the value of human life, yours and mine, is determined by how much we are costing to keep alive,and how much we burden our loved ones. This utilitarian approach denies the splendor of each person. It also denies the natural law that tells each one of us that life should be preserved.

It also is guilty of changing the meaning of words out of convenience. It is no longer murder because it would benefit us to do away with an elderly person, so we call it compassionate. That definition of compassion is nonsensical. The barbarians are not at the gates, they are in the news rooms, classrooms, and bioethics committees. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Eugenic Storm Trooper

Let me introduce you to this peculiarly nasty British philosopher; The Baroness Warnock. She not only supports people's right to assisted suicide, but also feels people have a duty to end their lives. From a recent story line:

A couple of months ago, in an interview with the Church of Scotland's magazine Life and Work, she said: "If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives--your family's lives--and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service. I'm fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there's a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they're a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die."
I dare say by her own definition that the Baroness now qualifies to add herself to those with this duty to die. The Baroness would have gotten along well with Hitler's Nazis who felt the very same way. Following this nasty woman's argument what ill elderly person wouldn't feel they were a burden? In short, she is saying personal feelings determine what is right and wrong? What of the mentally ill who cannot think clearly or who have their judgement clouded by a bout of depression?
My own son is severely mentally ill, so I resent her suggestion and resent her as a person for making it. The Baroness is living proof to me that neither age or advance academic degrees automatically produces wisdom. By her own definition of dementia I would cheerily say to her, "Madam, your views make you a waste of life!"
HHH

Devaluing Life Equals Green Light to Violence

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

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

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!"

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."

Lazy and Cowardly Compassion

The Proposition
Many of the arguments for euthanasia or assisted suicide are posed something like this:

An elderly parent becomes ill and cannot take care of him or herself. This puts an unbearable burden on the children. Expenses are incurred, careers are ruined and the children's lives are damaged beyond repair because of the parent. The argument continues that the parent hates being such a burden and the compassionate thing is to either assist the parent in suicide or even murder the parent. The result, career saved, money saved, and children no longer burdened.

The Truth Behind the Curtain
There is a small element of truth in this argument. Taking care of an ill loved one is a burden. Doing so may require putting your career on hold. Ending the parent's life would help with these burdens. Yet, the argument goes wrong by positing the idea that children and loved ones should never be inconvenienced. Yes, I said inconvenienced. Taking care of someone very ill is a huge inconvenience. So, why do so many buy into the idea that none of us should ever be inconvenienced! Why do people believe that they some how are entitled to a career? To the point that they would end a life to pursue it?? People's priorities clearly are all wrong. I am grateful to the Fire Fighters who are inconvenience by smoke and heat and yet pull people from a burning building. I am grateful to police who are inconvenienced by bullets and violence, yet still are actively fighting crime.

The Role Reversal
Most of our parents worked very hard to supply our needs when we were helpless and could not tend for ourselves. This is called being an infant. Many parents put their careers on hold to care for their children and provide food, clothing and shelter. When parents or loved ones age and become ill, the role is reversed. We who at one time depended on our loved ones for our very existence are being rightly asked to return the favor. Parents who woefully neglect children to pursue careers or get rich are sometimes charged with child abuse. Is it really any different when this is done to elderly parents?

The Spoiled Society
Our society has gotten so comfortable with all the modern conveniences that, as a result, we some how feel entitled to not be called upon to give up anything for anyone else. This has reached the point where people are writing and advocating the death of a fellow human so as not to be burdened in any way. Folks, I call that lazy. It takes courage to tough it out with the care of a severely ill loved one. Some pain might be felt and here is a new concept, a sacrifice might have to be made. I make this bold statement as one who is now a permanent caregiver, who lost considerable money and a career to take care of someone I love dearly.

Taking care of loved ones is a responsibility. Who really wants to be responsible these days? That is my whole point. Workmanship on products produced today is shoddy because no one feels responsible for it. Banks have collapsed because someone wasn't being responsible. Perhaps, the leaders of these banks were even working on their careers and getting rich at the time.

Historically, great things have been accomplished because a few individuals dared to take the heat and face the consequences. One prime example was the work that brought about the outlawing of slavery.

Sadly, our sluggard society is all too selfish, lazy and irresponsible. Murder is now considered an an appropriate option to elder care. The Barbarians truly are at the gate.